This is like the FINAL FINAL LAST TO BE SUBMITTED NEVER TO BE TOUCHED AGAIN FACTUM.

I hadn’t planned on writing any more about the Election, but since it somehow has managed to take a turn for the even uglier, I will add just a few words.

In this election, I started out ready to vote for 39/40 of the Bencher Good Governance Coalition, because as every other reasonably minded Ontario lawyer, I heaved a sigh of relief when an alternative to the other group was presented as a relatively easy solution.

After noting how many really capable Bencher candidates were running as “independents” – ie not part of the original “slate” that got in in 2019 or the new “coalition” that formed for the purpose of the 2023 election alone – I began to encourage others to review the candidate statements of those highly accomplished individuals.

Some of the independents include a Black man who is a member of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, 2 NCA graduates practising law in Ontario, several BIPOC women, one racialized senior male lawyer who has spent his entire life fighting for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, at great personal cost. And more.

Just suggesting that there were independent candidates who may be worth a second look began to draw me some attention and push-back from some BGGC candidates and mostly their very vocal supporters.

That support wasn’t particularly endearing – not just to me – but to any fair-minded observer. It was all (mainly older) white men, it was very loud, it was condescending, patronizing and attempted to lay blame at my feet and that of anyone who was either running independently or dared support an independent candidate.

I continued the dialogue on social media, here on the blog, via email and DMs and mostly on my Twitter account, gently probing a bit at first, then with a bit more force, but never rudely or using personal attacks. In fact, I called for a moratorium on personal attacks by both sides, which continued using a tone I was really struggling with because it had become so unprofessional and so uncivil.

In the process several women candidates within the BGGC engaged with me and others on Twitter and the dialogue was civil, courteous, respectful, positive and healing. There was finally some HOPE!

All that others and I were looking for was some softening of the BGGC party line, mostly shouted loudly by supporters, that we must all cast our votes for fully 40 candidates within their group.

We finally saw some softening on that and the recognition that some independents were as capable and possibly even more deserving of the vote of someone with a particular interest, than Coalition members and the world would not end should an Ontario lawyer vote for anyone outside the Coalition.

This made me happy on a Friday evening.

Then last night the push of the “All 40 or it’s all over” returned with a heavy hand to social media.

One BGGC Candidate equated ANY “criticism” of BGGC as playing into the hands of the FS. Not just a vote for an independent, but any criticism of the Coalition at all. I pointed out what a really troubling perspective that was. In my own view in any event.

In response, a parody account that positions itself as a supporter of the BGGC Coalition began attacking me personally for not choosing to engage the Full Stop slate and addressing anti-trans and anti-Semitic sentiments. They accused me of focusing on “attacking” the BGGC Coalition.

Having been the victim of exactly this type of online harassment for a year in 2021 by lawyer colleagues running a strikingly similar “parody” account, this was re-traumatizing for me. I have now locked my account down to private, which is terrible as I am hiring students right now and should be able to use my own social media to amplify the positions – but I need a break.

My concern all along has simply been to ensure we acknowledge the independent voices of those running for Bencher in this election who didn’t make it into the various groups or factions. They are less resourced than the groups, they are mostly racialized lawyers facing intersecting challenges. They have so much to contribute.

None of this in any way attacked candidates within the BGGC. Au contraire, I have worked hard to promote many of those candidates and their thoughtful positions taken as individuals during this election. I have written in all kinds of places, much of which not everyone would have seen, in support of many BGGC candidates. I never once personally attacked a single member of the group.

However, I remained, throughout, in support of raising awareness of the independents.

This was in support of what I thought was BGGC’s shared goal of diversity, inclusion & civility.

As a direct byproduct of the escalating demands for fully 40 votes for the BGGC Coalition, those candidates and their supporters have been silenced in this election. I see that as an unfairness to them.

BGGC and their supporters should not be in a position to paint them or me as right-wing zealots who hold offensive homophobic, anti-trans, racist or anti-Semitic views.

The whole of this election has taken on a tone that is embarrassing for everyone involved and ultimately suggests for serious consideration the idea that maybe we shouldn’t have 40 lawyers and 12 more paralegals and lay benchers governing this profession. Maybe 10-12 appointed benchers would avoid this kind of toxic circus.

The irony in all this is BGGC ran on a platform of inclusion, civility and with the goal of maintaining self-governance. Anyone who’s actually followed closely is wondering about the sustainability of any of it, precisely because of the tone and approach taken in demanding every vote cast in their favour.

It would have been better to acknowledge diversity among the independents and the bar and suggest the Coalition candidates for consideration perhaps first or mostly and even asking for all 40 votes or encouraging that is fine. Demanding it is not. Painting anyone who has a different approach as the enemy, name calling, online harassment, personal attacks, all bad.

I am grateful to those members of the Bar who have spoken out with courage and grace in the midst of all of this, in support of the idea that independents have merit and capacity, against ad hominem attacks, and civility, diversity and inclusion.

I am also grateful to those members of the bar, including several candidates within each group and the independents who’ve had any voice in this at all, who used their voice to acknowledge the reality of what’s happening in a candid and fair way.

And with that, and my locked private, Twitter, I am well and truly off.

Oh, And for what this is worth – my thoughts on this election have a very broad reach.

Thousands of people have viewed these blog entries. BGGC supporters might not think much of me, but blissfully, lots of others do. Might have been an idea to listen, just for a minute, to what I was saying.

Here is the progression of my thinking on this Election:

All the best to everyone.

Postscript

After some colleagues called on the BGGC to condemn the harassment and personal attacks on the parody account, seven members of the BGGC wrote on my Twitter timeline and appropriately acknowledged the harm.

The official BGG Twitter account took a different approach, expressly not condemning the attacks or recognizing the harm. They decided, instead, to suggest they were blamed for running the account and blamed for advising people to support all 40 of their members.

Meanwhile, I had suggested the BGGC have a word with whoever is running the parody account, IF any of their candidates was associated with it and that the account be deleted quickly.

It appears that it was immediately deleted.

That’s good – maybe I can reopen my Twitter and make it public again.

This blogpost has now been read more than 300 times in the first 24 hours it has been online, even with my socials locked.

It’s good to know people do care what I think.

And that my advice on the toxic account worked and someone shut it down real quick.

But it’s a shame BGGC would not condemn the tactics and abuse, as a Coalition, in any public way, at least at first, and had to really be prodded to get somewhere near, as below.

Seven individual candidates did publicly acknowledge the harm.

They deserve to be named here – thank you Gerald Chan, Jasminka Kalajdzic, Stephanie Sutherland, Laura Emmett, Joelle Malette, Natalia Rodriguez and Heather Hansen. Some others reached out privately so I will not name them but did appreciate the gesture and support. Thus far, all Coalition members who have acknowledged the harm, whether on social media or privately, have been women – other than, notably, Gerald Chan.

It troubles me a great deal that until I was alerted to the offending account and called it out, it was spewing its venom, unchecked, targeting fellow lawyer colleagues with unfettered personal animus, under cover of anonymity. That should be examined as an area for potential regulation by the Law Society, in my view, given the prevalence of such lawyer-run “parody” accounts [really just cheap character-assassination attempts] and the resulting harm to the reputations of other lawyers, who are otherwise powerless to respond, except in kind. But of course, using your real name doesn’t afford the same cover or protection so identifying yourself means you’re bound by civility conduct rules.

Still, at least some are speaking out now, and I consider that progress. It is indeed heart-warming to see collegiality, civility, decorum and inclusion alive, and if not quite well, at least hanging on.

PS #2 – Still suggesting they’ve been accused of controlling a troll account, the Coalition now indicates it opposes online harassment. It doesn’t actually acknowledge the harassment or why it was harmful and continues to characterize the account as one that trolled FS rather than one that (also) supported BGGC, but OK. That’s a step in the right direction anyway – Tweet issued around noon today, the 17th of April – so about 30 + hours after the offensive comments / attacks first surfaced. But it’s good to know the message is surely, if slowly, getting through or moving in the right direction anyway.

The latest tweet from BGGC says Some people allege we’re behind a Twitter account that’s trolling the Full Stop slate. We’re not and we are against online harassment. The only Twitter account we control is this one.

Let me see if I can link to it:

I gather now as the situation evolves, I should update fully in fairness to all concerned – I’ll do my best while also practising law, given that I’m not actually running in this Election – we’ve all got our limits.

I am sure I may also miss something so if you think I did – feel free to DM or email me or comment here.