My last words anyway.

My first words are here:

As a voter with no horse in this race, other than my own self-interest as an Ontario lawyer licensee, but someone who has given the issues an enormous amount of thought, I do have some observations that some candidates may find helpful. Or not. This is a take it or leave it stream-of-consciousness message mainly so I can stop worrying and reading and talking about this, knowing whatever happens happens.

But candidates should take note of the temperature in the room at the moment. Which is this:

1. Ontario lawyers are sick to death of hearing about these Bencher elections.
2. Most don’t care at the best of times, which is the sad reality, but now they’re being bombarded with propaganda that is minimally annoying and at worst, infuriating.
3. People don’t enjoy conflict. They hate being innocent bystanders in anything that looks unpleasant, confrontational and anxiety-inducing.
4. People hate name calling and insults. Lawyers do not enjoy watching other lawyers hurling insults.
5. Lawyers like fairness and generally have an anti-authoritarian bent. We don’t like being told what to do.
6. Lawyers value independence in thought and expression. That includes voting.
7. People don’t like being threatened or being told that if they don’t fall in line, the world will end and it will be on them for being errant.
8. Everybody has their own view, political and personal. Very few are likely to get fully behind a pre-determined group of 40, leaving them with no other choice, not even one – or the sky will fall.
9. Everybody is exhausted and bored. Further infighting and threats will reduce voter turn out, not increase it.
10. With about one week left to go until voting opens, some really deserving candidates are now at risk of undermining their own candidacy and the interest of any group they’re affiliated with because further negative messaging and personal attacks are now going to turn off those who were with you initially.

We are headed into the moment of diminishing returns now, unless candidates change course, recognize the reality that there are richly deserving independent candidates, some of whom would certainly strive to achieve the same goals as coalition / slate members, but bring their lived experience to convocation as well.

When you tell us to vote for fully 40 people you’ve approved or selected as appropriate, you are also telling us NOT to vote for some others we would prefer.

This leads to logical disconnects that are hard for thoughtful, intelligent voters to digest.

For example, in the name of diversity, equality and inclusion, we are being asked to cast our votes for some older white men who are richly resourced and at the same time NOT vote for independent candidates, many of whom lack the resources to mount a flashy campaign and are entirely on their own, who have nonetheless devoted their entire adult life and legal career to fighting for just those ideals / goals. You are also telling us we can’t vote for some young racialized women whose agenda is to advance the interest of young racialized women. Just because those women didn’t make the cut for whatever reason in a group that does contain individuals without the lived experience some of us want to see represented in Convocation to the fullest extent possible.

The us or them paradigm has also silenced individual endorsements for members of each slate / coalition.

Voters are afraid to endorse certain members of one or the other for fear that that individual endorsement will make them appear like they don’t support the whole group and then others in the group will be upset or the endorser will be targeted for failing to grasp the emergency that’s threatening self-governance.

There is a legitimate concern that should the next Convocation successfully vote in an entire other group in place of the first group – admittedly a bad, bad result last time – that in itself will threaten self-governance. It will be an actual demonstration that we have politicized the process along “party” lines. It’s worthwhile to note that there is zero guarantee slates won’t be the future of Bencher elections until and unless self-governance is actually lost. Apart from a promise to refer the issue to a Committee for consideration, we have not heard any actual plan for how this would be prevented in future. My own view is you can never prevent any number of people mutually endorsing each other and seeking your vote for them all. THAT might well stifle free speech.

The smart money, in my own personal view, at the minute is to candidly acknowledge the following:

1. There were real problems in Convocation last term due to conduct unbecoming of a bencher by some
2. Nobody wants a repeat of that
3. It’s important to elect candidates committed to working in the public interest acknowledging the serious issues the profession is facing, which include access to justice, greying of the bar, lack of articling positions, high law school tuitions, high law society fees, inequities among members of the bar based on a host of factors, barriers faced by women, racialized licensees, sole practitioners or small firm lawyers, rural practitioners, lawyers working mainly on legal aid files, etc.
4. There are candidates who have thought about these issues and have a plan – including independents.
5. If you’re one of these candidates, share your plan – communicate your own plan independently and clearly
6. Acknowledge that there are some candidates in your own group you believe will effectively advocate for those same goals and feel free to name them if you want, if you’re in a group that is.
7. You can say you believe all the candidates in your group will advocate all the same things you will, if you believe that to be the case, obviously – but right now the emphasis is on people NOT doing that, which is actually confusing for voters. If I really like YOUR platform, exactly – why would I want to vote for someone who may take the opposite view of the same thing instead of an independent candidate whose platform aligns exactly with yours / mine?
8. Recognize and acknowledge that there are independent candidates who may well deserve our vote.
9. Don’t be afraid to name them – you know they’re there – you might even want to vote for some of them
10. Focus on positives – any and all positives you can find right now. Some examples may include:

(a) the positive contribution you will make as a Bencher,

(b) the positive aspects of self-governance,

(c) the positives, if any, coming out of the last few weeks of this Election process,

(d) positive aspects of your opponent’s agenda if you agree with something they say that you might be prepared to support or promote,

(e) the positive way in which some candidates have managed to conduct themselves throughout this election,

(f) the positive contribution of incumbents who have done something worthy of praise,

(g) anything positive to cleanse our palates of the bile we’ve been surrounded by that is leaving a very bad taste in the mouths of many voters.

Voters you want to entice with honey. No. More. Flies.

With that, I bid this issue a not so fond farewell until voting day when I will be voting for whoever I want.

All the best to everyone running in the election and thank you for your preparedness to step up.

It’s a huge commitment few can afford to give, time-wise and resource-wise.

You’re a SUPERHERO!