The Woke cancelled her article, now they want to cancel her
Welcome to Canada Shahdin Farsai!
Farsai, a practicing lawyer since 2016, wrote a short, innocuous article suggesting recent British Columbia court directives asking for people’s gender pronouns amounted to compelled speech, endangered privacy rights and could prejudice the court in certain cases. The article was accepted for publication in the BC law magazine, The Advocate, and the editor looked for someone to represent the other side in the debate. Instead he received a vitriolic campaign that included threats to The Advocate’s funding if he were to print Shahdin’s article. The article was subsequently published in The Canadian Lawyer out of Toronto but after a five day campaign of character assassination and more threats, the article was pulled. You can read Shahdin’s offending article for yourself here: Republished: British Columbia’s practice directions on preferred gender pronouns in court are problematic – CANADIAN GENDER REPORT
Shahdin Farsai did not disappear. She seconded the following resolution presented to this month’s convention of the B.C. Law Society:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
a) the Membership affirms its commitment to rational and unfettered discourse on
any and all issues regarding the Directives;
b) the Membership affirms that no topic that relates to our profession and the
administration of justice should be exempt from open debate
The campaign of vitriol directed against Shahdin by a core group of Wokists resumed. Among the attackers was was Clare Jennings, President of the B.C. Bar Association. Many people have been cancelled from their jobs as a result of such mobbings. Instead, we are pleased to reprint the following letter sent to Ms. Jennings from Ms. Farsai’s employer. We encourage all employers to stand behind their employees in similar circumstances.
From: Keith Sabey
Sent: September 20, 2021 12:43 PM
To: clare.jennings@gov.bc.ca
Subject:
Clare, As a member of the Okanagan Wills and Trusts executive for many years and chair for the last two years, I was disappointed to see your email purporting to speak on behalf of the entire CBABC to vote down the resolution put forward by Shahdin. I certainly was not consulted on your email about Shahdin (one of my associates) prior to it being sent out.
Shahdin is an intellectually gifted, young lawyer, who immigrated from Iran at a young age, and has worked hard for everything that she has. She has had to work harder than many of us as she is a minority woman. She takes her oath seriously and felt compelled to write her article to initiate the debate on concerns that she has with the practice directives.
I agree that this is not the ideal forum to discuss this. A better forum for these debates would have been The Advocate. Unfortunately the editor was threatened with a human rights complaint and there was suggestion that the Advocate’s funding might be in jeopardy if they published the article and so they backed down. Similar threats were made to the Canadian Lawyer magazine and they pulled the article shortly after online print. I was disappointed and frankly ashamed to see my colleagues immediately form a digital mob in an effort to try to silence this minority woman trying to have her voice heard. She was called hateful and bigoted and even had one lawyer mocking her physical appearance. In reading the criticisms of her and her article it was clear that few, if any of her detractors had actually read the full article or at least not read it carefully.
Clearly there are numerous issues surrounding the PD that require clarification and further debate. In my mind the primary issues are privacy issues and the appearance of bias in cases where the sex/ gender of a litigant is related to or is the primary issue being litigated. Specifically we have received CBA trainings (as well as numerous other articles) that “outing” a trans person may be harmful or even “fatal” and that we should NOT proactively and publicly ask for a persons pronouns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRUtxXEkvr4 Why then have we have implemented a directive that publicly prompts litigants (including trans litigants) to state their pronouns in open court? Is it harmful or “fatal” to trans persons to be “outed” everywhere except in a public courtroom; one of the most stressful public settings imaginable? This makes no sense to me and I want clarification and want to hear the point debated.
The directive also encourages and might even require litigants to use another litigants stated pronouns in cases where the sex/ gender of the litigant is related to or even is central to the issue in dispute. This could take place in difficult cases where young children are seeking transition against the wishes of parents or say with transgender sporting issues. For example how will this PD operate in a cases where say a 17 year old biological girl wrestler (who is competing at provincials, looking for scholarships, future coaching positions, Olympics, etc.) is arguing that she should not have to compete with a 17 year old biological boy who identifies as a girl who may take away her position and future opportunities? The entire issue is whether for the purpose of competing in this combat sport, the biological boy should be considered a boy or a girl. Will the court begin the proceeding by saying: “we understand that you are arguing that the boy is a boy for the purposes of wrestling. However we will require you to refer to the boy as a girl for the duration of the proceeding”? In such cases does the PD not give the impression of bias against the biological female, and the appearance of procedural unfairness to the public? Are we required to use the other litigants stated pronouns even in cases where it is at the heart of the issue being litigated and even if our client’s instructions and interest are the opposite? I do not know the answer (the PD does not say) or how to deal with these difficult questions but I would like to hear these points debated.
Following robust debate, there likely is a way the PD could be worded that would avoid these and other problems. Unfortunately there is an effort to silence one side of the debate.
It is highly inappropriate for you to use your position to publicly suggest that what Shahdin has done is in any way analogous to slavery, genocide, or to allege that Shahdin opposes “transgender and non-binary people exist[ing] and [that they] deserve equal respect and dignity.” The latter suggestion is a demonstrably false allegation against Shahdin and unfortunately one that I fear other CBA members might accept as truth simply because of the position you hold and the fact that you said it. There is nothing in the proposal or in her article that says this or anything remotely close to it.
Never in my life did I think that I would read an email from the CBA taking a stand against something so fundamental as our right to free and open debate; particularly on challenging issues like this.
Keith Sabey
Barrister & Solicitor,
Managing Partner
Sabey Rule LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
201 – 401 Glenmore Road
Kelowna, BC V1V 1Z6
Phone: (250) 762-6111, Ext: #106
Fax: (250) 762-6480
Toll Free: 1-866-268-6383
8 replies on “The Woke cancelled her article, now they want to cancel her”
These folks reflect a worrying development across North America and likely elsewhere that is reminiscent of the attitudes of anti-democrats, including fascists and communists, from Hitler and Mussolini to the Communists of the Soviet Union prior to and including the 2nd World War and thereafter. Unfortunately this same bigotry has reached epidemic proportions among the current ranks of the U.S. Democrats, the Canadian Liberals, NDP, their union bosses and their spokespeople (including many supposed ‘journalists’ in the media, and among the bureaucrats and the left-wing academics of the Universities and colleges.
I say this as an Enlightenment thinker, retired lawyer and Provincial Court Jurist, and most importantly, as an upholder of democracy and an enemy of Fascism anywhere in the world.
In his response (above), Myron Kuziak compares the Woke in their tactics of censoring Shahdin Farsai to reactionary totalitarians. In her response to B.C. lawyers, Jody Wells invokes Mickey Mouse to show how the Woke are not respecting the human rights of transgender people. Here is Ms. Well’s response in full:
“I write in response to the statement issued by Ms. Clare Jennings under the auspices of the Canadian Bar Association – British Columbia Branch and directed at Law Society of British Columbia Member Resolution 1, as well as her and others’ wealth of published materials, some of which might be viewed on the CBABC website. At this time, I will not address the glaring logical fallacies peppering the front nine of her piece assaulting the Resolution and its authors; any lawyer who cannot distinguish dogma from decency, a sentiment from a slur, legislation from liturgy, a concept from a crime, existence from embrace, a position from a prejudice or violence from verbiage has already lost the plot and likely will not read my remarks in any event.
I preface my remarks thus: place me in a room with a transgender/non-binary person, and that person will be in no doubt of that person’s inherent, immutable and unequivocal value as a human being from my perspective; inherent human value is a given irrespective of gender. Perhaps for this reason, I find the idea that such a person should be obliged to blend, and the corresponding requirement for a “normalization” of that person’s identity, the most odious proposition I have ever heard. Think about what Ms. Jennings is actually saying when she takes up the cross of “normalizing” who these people are; implicit in her statement is that they are not normal, so everyone needs to pretend they are, in order to make them normal, which they ought not be obliged to be. A more condescending affront to the individuality and unique characteristics of transgender people I have never heard; I am embarrassed that anyone would say such a thing aloud. Why on earth would transgender people need to conform to Ms. Jennings’– or anyone else’s – notions of normalcy? Are they not unique and precious human beings who possess the right to stand out? Ms. Jennings’ take is the shallowest of any purporting to champion the cause of a class of people I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
If, as Ms. Jennings states, “Transgender lawyers are misgendered almost daily, including when they are in court and the courthouse,” they need not be, for they are permitted to make their genders known to the Court in the event their genders do not align with their gender presentations, and should be encouraged to do so, full stop. On the other hand, if they wish not to be “out,” they are equally free to permit the inevitable assumption, in which case the desired outcome is achieved. To be clear, only two possible scenarios exist for the transgender/non-binary lawyer: either the transgender/non-binary lawyer wishes to stand out, in which case the transgender/non-binary lawyer takes steps to point out the distinction between the transgender/non-binary lawyer’s gender presentation and gender; or, the transgender non-binary lawyer does not wish to stand out, in which case the transgender/non-binary lawyer may permit the assumption that aligns with the transgender/non-binary lawyer’s gender presentation. Either way, the lawyer remains in complete control of the decision, and compelling every other lawyer to perform an announcement does nothing to ameliorate the degree to which the lawyer whose stated gender does not align with the lawyer’s gender presentation stands out. Arguably, though, this person desires to stand out more than this person desires to blend, which ultimately has no bearing on this person’s dignity. The suggestion that it should is offensive.
Therefore, Ms. Jennings’ statement that “When misgendering happens to a transgender witness or party, it signals that their identity may not be recognized and accorded equal dignity and respect in the courtroom setting” is a non-starter, for this type of misgendering is possible only where a party’s observable characteristics do not comport with the way in which that party wishes the Court to address that party. Thus, misgendering cannot “[contribute] to the significant barriers to access to justice encountered by transgender people” unless such people wish to identify pronouns which do not comport with their gender presentations, in which case they are free to make the distinction known to the Court, and in which case they will necessarily stand out, irrespective of what anyone else says and does. The implicit suggestion that there is something wrong with that because it fails to comport with Ms. Jennings’ standards of normalcy is offensive – to transgender/non-binary people.
The Courts’ Practice Directions are not merely “a simple solution aimed at ameliorating” the problems facing transgender and non-binary people, as Ms. Jennings states. Clearly she has not worked through the logic of the situation.
First, Ms. Jennings rightly suggests that “all participants in the justice system should…be able to focus on the issues to be decided in the courtroom;” I would point out that this includes non-transgender, binary participants, for whom the Directions constitute unnecessary and even deceptive distractions to their proceedings. Indeed, the simplest solution for all affected is that anyone who wishes a gender assumption not be relied on be permitted to inform the Court in whatever way that person deems desirable.
Ms. Jennings’idea, stated elsewhere, that compelling all lawyers and parties to a proceeding to announce their pronouns normalizes what she here refers to broadly as “transgenderism” is errant. The performance of every binary person stating he/him and she/her pronouns in no way normalizes the situation of the person who appears to be male or female issuing opposite or they/them pronouns; arguably, it causes the latter to stand out all the more, juxtaposed against a sea of males and females, who look like males and females, affirming that they are in fact males and females. In this way, it does nothing to lessen the “which one of these is not like the others” effect; worse, it presents as disingenuous, condescending theatre. What is more, it forces non-transgender, binary lawyers to be parties to Ms. Jennings’ deeply offensive fixation on “normalizing” those who ought to be unconditionally accepted as who they are. At its absolute worst, it forces transgender/non-binary lawyers to do the same, regardless of whether they desire to engage or not, and in the cruelest, most self-debasing way possible; for permitting an assumption because that assumption may render a more desirable outcome is one thing; a compelled public denial of one’s identity by one’s own mouth is quite another. I know a great many people who would prefer an assumption innocently made by another over being forced to deny their own identities by way of their own public professions. I have heard of one-size-fits-all solutions that are not ideal, but this one fails on every count.
Gender educator Adrienne Smith’s idea, stated elsewhere, that Mickey Mouse is free to use Michael Rat’s he/him pronouns in court, in order to avoid outing Mickey Mouse, further reinforces the point that stating pronouns is only necessary should Mickey Mouse desire to be out; after all, if Mickey Mouse looks and sounds like Michael Rat, and the observing world would assume Mickey Mouse is Michael Rat, and Mickey Mouse does not wish to be outed in court, Mickey Mouse need only let the Court and parties make the assumption of their eyes and ears. Only in the situation where Mickey Mouse, who appears and sounds like Michael Rat, wishes to be out and for the Court and parties to be fully aware of a gender situation that does not comport with Mickey Mouse’s gender presentation does it become necessary for Mickey Mouse to declare other than assumed pronouns to the Court. In other words, any situation other than the express outing of oneself requires no disclosure, since the Court and the parties will invariably arrive at the observable outcome. Moreover, the practice of forcing Mickey Mouse to disclose private gender details in open court is inappropriate, according to Smith.
In my view, the “exceptional step” taken by the CBABC of inserting its dogma into the profession is nowhere near exceptional; apart from the Law Society itself, the CBABC has been the primary driving force in foisting what might rightly be described as performative behaviour absent any hope of solving any enumerated problem on the profession as a whole – the absence of logical underpinnings of which ought put paid to the pretence that the project enjoys any basis for continuing.”
The resolution to be voted on at the upcoming BC Law Society’s AGM does no more than affirm the right of rank-and-file BC lawyers to publicly argue for or against a measure that was enacted without consulting them beforehand, and that they have now been repeatedly told is “not up for debate” afterwards, either.
The resolution grows out of the experience of lawyers like Shahdin Farsai, whose articles discussing the practice directive were initially accepted by two legal affairs journals and then “cancelled” under threat of legal action or a boycott on the part of a small lobby of gender-activist lawyers who argue that “there are not two sides” to this issue.
Affirming the opposite is the aim of this resolution.
Certainly in human affairs, be they scientific or not, humans are unable to be all-knowing, essentially god-like.
During the entire history of humanity, most people have perceived the Christian God, or Allah, or other god-like entities, as all-knowing.
However, being that there are no proofs, involving scientifically verifiable evidence, beliefs in such entities must be based on faith alone. That is fine.
Clever humanists have taken pains to protect the holders of any beliefs or opinions from being punished, or worse, murdered, by those with power from holding and exercising their beliefs. The only caveat is that the holders of religious or other beliefs must not force those beliefs on others under pain of being punished or murdered.
This illustrates the prime fallacy surrounding the assertions of beliefs of groups like Law Societies and other Wokeist totalitarians, the Marxists and other fascists, cultists and religious fundamentalists, that their truths are the only valid ones and that all others must be suppressed, repressed, punished or otherwise harmed to force compliance to the views and beliefs of such groups.
And that is why, in democracies, all groups, including governments, and agencies which hold power through such governments, are forbidden by laws or constitutions from using their power to declare, demand and enforce obediance to opinions or views declared by them.
One would have thought that should be obvious to an educated person such as Ms. Clare Jennings claims to be. It is not obvious that she and her supporters fit that description.
After writing my 2nd comment concerning the dictats of the Bar Association of British Columbia I realized I had not directly commented on Mr. Robertson’ comment, or the lengthy comment of Jody Wells. They have both recognized a major flaw in the reasoning of the Wokeists relating to a mis-characterization of of the people they purport to be trying to protect. Instead they do the opposite. It is typical of such bigots to do this as they are unable to find valid and sensible arguments to sustain their beliefs and assertions as they flail around looking for arguments to support themselves.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation just did an interview with an “expert” who condemned Shahdin without reading her original article and without consulting with the mover or seconder of the motion affirming lawyer’s right to debate. This would be an example of how the Woke control discourse, but here at NEP we believe in your right to hear both sides. Here is Jim Heller’s letter to Margot Young, the law professor drafted by the CBC for this interview:
“Hi professor Young,
As you might know, not sure if you do, I’m the proponent of the law society pronouns directives resolution you were interviewed about last Friday. I only found out about the show today when a friend mentioned it in passing. In case, you can’t recall what you said exactly, you’ll find the link here:
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-46-on-the-coast?fbclid=IwAR0QX2ne9F3QSkFjEPy-yGk-u59X5lJ-GRqYeXe4ztKtBdH9u2CAYaKOapo
I was amazed to listen to you opine so speculatively on this motion of which you clearly don’t know much. You said that you didn’t understand our concerns, our agenda or, for that matter, what we were really saying. But that didn’t stop you from denigrating us, dismissing any possible legitimacy to our position and even, near the end, suggesting that Shahdin’s two articles were “hate speech” despite the fact that you hadn’t actually read them!
Further you were wrong on the facts – the judiciary did not consult with the bar generally before imposing the directives. They did so only after a stealth campaign by the transgender activists in CBA SOGIC.
And you were wrong on the law – there most certainly is an argument that this compelled speech might not pass charter scrutiny. In that respect, having to for the first time in human history, announce one’s gender and that of one’s clients and witnesses, let alone in a court of law, raises many concerns that can’t be summarily dismissed.
But that “hate speech” claim that you just threw out there? About an article you hadn’t even bothered to read before your interview? Really, professor Young? In retrospect, can you honestly say that that was an ethical and fair thing to do? What if you actually did read the article now and found them to be anything but?
Here it is, in fact:
https://archive.vn/9mXoW
This is the article that 216 lawyers, including three law society benchers, screamed bloody murder about, threatening to run Canadian Lawyer if they didn’t immediately delete and replace it with a grovelling apology.
You might not agree with the arguments expressed therein but of course it’s not hate speech. I look forward to hearing from you on this.
Thanks very much.”
Shahdin Farsai would be an excellent candidate for a leadership position in the Canadian branch of the US based FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) organization which is pushing back against similarly egregious attacks by The Woke in the US on the civil liberties and livelihoods of anyone disagreeing with any aspect of Woke dogma.
I just want to thank you for your support and for writing this article on this forum. At this moment, I have other life commitments, which leave little time for service on the FAIR board, although, I will certainly keep it in mind. Thank you again.