Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bart101

Used "more Canadian" name in articling application - advice?

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, kiamia said:

Can somebody provide a privilege scorecard? That way we can all tally up our scores and, as in golf, lowest one wins. Then we'll just put that person in charge of all marginalization/privilege-related topics in the future. 

 

While that person may win this conversation, I think we can safely say that those with the highest scores are the real winners... 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Diplock said:

...

3. I did sorta call you an Uncle Tom. I'll own it. But it's a much more complex term than most people believe. Talking about what we know and don't know ... have you read Uncle Tom's Cabin? I have. Tom is a very admirable figure in most regards. In fact he's Christ-like. It's only in after-the-fact reaction to the book (many years later) that the figure becomes problematic. It's a microcosm of this discussion. Is it better to resist or to get along, if you can, and wait for change that is larger than yourself? I'm not saying the answer is easy. But I am saying this is one of those situations where your lived experiences, even though they should be respected (if you're prepared to claim them, which you still haven't done) don't necessarily prove your advice is right and mine wrong.

...

[portion only quoted]

2 hours ago, providence said:

...

3. Yes, I read it. And you don't know enough about me to call me a Tom. Those are fighting words.

...

[portion only quoted]

Yeah I'm with providence on this. Yes, Tom was a Christlike figure. But that's not what it means when it's used today. Or for a lighter example, thanks to Bugs Bunny sarcastically insulting Elmer Fudd, if one calls someone a nimrod it's an insult, you're not calling them a mighty hunter as in the Bible. See e.g. Bryan Garner's reference to teaching the late Justice Scalia this:

"...Words change their meanings in wholly unpredictable ways. My illustration of that point was one that Scalia loved. Let’s say there’s a 1910 statute that provides: “All nimrods in this state must carry a license.” In 2015, someone sues to invalidate the statute as being discriminatory against the intellectually disabled. What’s the standard of being a nimrod? An IQ below 80? Why should low-intelligence people have to carry licenses? So the statute gets challenged on equal protection grounds. The question is whether the 1910 meaning of nimrod governs, or the 2015 meaning. Ask almost anyone today, especially anyone under the age of 50, what a nimrod is, and you’ll be given any of several possible synonyms: nincompoop, simpleton, doofus, idiot, moron, etc. Scalia was shocked by this revelation: To him, a nimrod was a hunter. He disputed me. We called in his law clerks, each of whom insisted that a nimrod is a stupid person. He was even more astounded about the reason for the change in meaning: Bugs Bunny. In several episodes of the famous cartoon, the beloved rabbit emerged from a hole to insult Elmer Fudd, carrying his blunderbuss: “Nimrod!” And so several generations of Americans have learned, by osmosis from Bugs, that a nimrod is a dunderhead. What should a judge do in applying the 1910 statute? Apply the new meaning or the old? Well, that’s an easy example: the old, of course. It’s a reductio ad absurdum, one of Scalia’s favorite turns of mind. Take a principle to its logical extreme to show that it has no bounds or doesn’t work...." [emphasis added]

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/bryan_garners_tribute_to_his_friend_and_co_author_antonin_scalia

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, epeeist said:

[portion only quoted]

[portion only quoted]

Yeah I'm with providence on this. Yes, Tom was a Christlike figure. But that's not what it means when it's used today. Or for a lighter example, thanks to Bugs Bunny sarcastically insulting Elmer Fudd, if one calls someone a nimrod it's an insult, you're not calling them a mighty hunter as in the Bible. See e.g. Bryan Garner's reference to teaching the late Justice Scalia this:

"...Words change their meanings in wholly unpredictable ways. My illustration of that point was one that Scalia loved. Let’s say there’s a 1910 statute that provides: “All nimrods in this state must carry a license.” In 2015, someone sues to invalidate the statute as being discriminatory against the intellectually disabled. What’s the standard of being a nimrod? An IQ below 80? Why should low-intelligence people have to carry licenses? So the statute gets challenged on equal protection grounds. The question is whether the 1910 meaning of nimrod governs, or the 2015 meaning. Ask almost anyone today, especially anyone under the age of 50, what a nimrod is, and you’ll be given any of several possible synonyms: nincompoop, simpleton, doofus, idiot, moron, etc. Scalia was shocked by this revelation: To him, a nimrod was a hunter. He disputed me. We called in his law clerks, each of whom insisted that a nimrod is a stupid person. He was even more astounded about the reason for the change in meaning: Bugs Bunny. In several episodes of the famous cartoon, the beloved rabbit emerged from a hole to insult Elmer Fudd, carrying his blunderbuss: “Nimrod!” And so several generations of Americans have learned, by osmosis from Bugs, that a nimrod is a dunderhead. What should a judge do in applying the 1910 statute? Apply the new meaning or the old? Well, that’s an easy example: the old, of course. It’s a reductio ad absurdum, one of Scalia’s favorite turns of mind. Take a principle to its logical extreme to show that it has no bounds or doesn’t work...." [emphasis added]

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/bryan_garners_tribute_to_his_friend_and_co_author_antonin_scalia

 

This is a silly argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Diplock said:

I dislike where this is going, because I can't shake the feeling that you've on the verge of inviting me to a privilege accounting. And unlike a 50's dance fight, I don't think it would be a lot of fun or amusing to any onlookers. I'll only say that I take it as assumed you are also one of the non-representative members of the profession who made it here (you did end up here for some reason, didn't you?) and that I said I'm the first in my immediate family to attend post-secondary education. Not law school. Not professional school. Any post-secondary. Now please stop trying to undermine my identity, because I'm sincerely not trying to do that to you.

I meant to say high school, sorry. Law school too, but I was the first to finish high school (and almost the first to even start it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about "being Muslim" isn't that you actually have to BE Muslim in terms of actively practising the Muslim faith. You get labelled as "Muslim" by some people if you have brown skin and/or appear to be what people see as Middle Eastern or Arabic (which can include people who appear to have ancestry in India, etc.) and a "Muslim" sounding name, which could be Arabic, Persian, Swahili, African-American, Sanskrit.... Most people inclined to be racist are not terribly good at knowing peoples' actual ancestry. You can also have a parent of a Muslim background who gave you a Muslim name even though you yourself do not practice Islam.  And it is complex when picking a jury specifically, because at least in your dealings with judges, Crown attorneys, or clients one on one, they are going to get to know you over time and hopefully lose some of their stereotypes and assumptions. But with a jury, they are going to know your name, your face/body and what you do in court and they are not allowed to know anything else about you.They don't even see you in normal clothing. So they won't have the opportunity to discriminate against you for your religion, mental illness, sexuality or class. But they will see your age, your gender and your race, and where your name and race do suggest a religion or ethnicity, they'll assume that. And sometimes you would in the ordinary course of things want jury members who are less-educated and maybe even a little prejudiced for the benefit of your client. But where a jury will be able to tell your race and where they will be able to assume you are Muslim or some other identity that may not be desirable to some people, you have to worry about whether their prejudices will benefit your client more than they might make the jury discount what you say or turn against your client because they don't like you... especially if your Crown and/or the judge happen to be handsome white men who take against you.

My point in saying that is that discrimination doesn't stop with landing an articling position. People (understandably) focus so much on that in law school like it is the end goal. t's not. If you're worried about racism before getting the articling job, you'll worry about how it affects: your performance during articling, hirebacks, landing a lawyer job, getting clients, getting promoted, getting along with co-workers, how judges react to you, and so on and so on. And you will literally kill yourself if you are constantly wondering if racism is to blame when you don't do as well as you hoped at any of those things. And my point wasn't to discount class as a source of discrimination independent of race or religion, or to negate that as a legitimate identity, but that it doesn't operate in the same way as race in this context. So being angry about class discrimination or having a chip on your shoulder about class discrimination while also being a white man may not be the best advice for a visible minority. The white man, low class or not, still has enough privilege to get away with having the chip that a Muslim or supposed Muslim of colour does not. The low class man is just not having to wear and contend with his identity in the same way, day in and day out, and I meant no disrespect in saying that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pyke said:

This is a silly argument.

Which one? The meaning of calling someone an Uncle Tom, the meaning of nimrod, or are you disagreeing on principle because although the example is statutory you know Scalia was an originalist in US constitutional interpretation which you disagree with?

1 hour ago, drankcoffee said:

As an off shoot of this: how do employers treat legal name changes?

As a further tangent, I'm not sure what the current rules are regarding firm names when one of the names is appointed to the bench, but there used to be restrictions (and may still be) about having a now-judge in your firm name, unless you had a lawyer (didn't have to be a partner) with that name at your firm. So anecdotally, some firms were said to have hired associates just for their last name, and/or promoted someone to partner to have a better excuse for keeping the name. But that was when firms tended to use longer localized names.

But I would think that they would tend to not care except that they may assume it is spousal (and so if you're very private, wonder or even ask even if they shouldn't?), want you to set their minds at ease that HR, law society, insurers, etc. are all informed, and if it seems strange, they'll wonder, e.g. why you're now "Spider Mann":

"...Spider found out that it is possibly too easy to legally change your name. "$114.95, two pages filed, a judge signed off, posted it at the courthouse for two weeks, and boom, new name. I changed the whole thing, thinking to myself 'I'm gonna have some fun with this. Why NOT go full bore Spider-Man? This is gonna be great!'" The first bump in the road: online dating. To Spider's surprise, once he got to real-life introductions, not many dates were down to get it on with a Spider...."

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2461-my-new-legal-name-spider-mann.-yes-i-have-some-regrets.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Which one? The meaning of calling someone an Uncle Tom, the meaning of nimrod, or are you disagreeing on principle because although the example is statutory you know Scalia was an originalist in US constitutional interpretation which you disagree with?

Well, I was going to point this out, and thought better of it. But since you've reinforced the point, I really don't think Scalia makes a lot of sense in these arguments either. If "Nimrod" were in the Constitution, he'd go to his grave insisting it means "mighty hunter." But in legislation the meaning can change in a generation, even when we know and have almost irrefutable access to the meaning of word and the intention of those who used it when it was enacted? I'm not saying words don't change their meaning. I agree whole-heartedly with you on that. I'm just saying that Scalia is inconsistent on this topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Well, I was going to point this out, and thought better of it. But since you've reinforced the point, I really don't think Scalia makes a lot of sense in these arguments either. If "Nimrod" were in the Constitution, he'd go to his grave insisting it means "mighty hunter." But in legislation the meaning can change in a generation, even when we know and have almost irrefutable access to the meaning of word and the intention of those who used it when it was enacted? I'm not saying words don't change their meaning. I agree whole-heartedly with you on that. I'm just saying that Scalia is inconsistent on this topic.

See, I dislike undue rigid orthodoxy when it doesn't make sense; even a non-originalist should agree in extreme cases. If Nimrod were in the US constitution (and not by a more recent amendment), I would agree it would mean hunter.

If "Nimrod" were in the US Constitution, adopted in 1787, let's say it guaranteed the right of Nimrods to bear arms for that purpose, I would strenuously argue that it protected the rights of hunters to use weapons for hunting purposes, not the right of idiots and morons to bear arms for idiotic and moronic purposes. Feel free to make jokes about what the right to bear arms means in effect today... :twisted:

And if in 1910 a statute used Nimrod as in the example, likewise (subject to evidence otherwise as to what the 1910 meaning was).

And lets say there was another, different statute adopted in 2017 that used nimrod in a context that made clear it wasn't as a hunter. I could totally see the same word, for purposes of statutory interpretation, having very different meanings, based upon when the statutes were enacted (this is not a legal argument re principles of statutory interpretation!).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kiamia said:

Can somebody provide a privilege scorecard? That way we can all tally up our scores and, as in golf, lowest one wins. Then we'll just put that person in charge of all marginalization/privilege-related topics in the future. 

Privilege bingo! Note, check your human privilege! (Centre square).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, artsydork said:

Privilege bingo! Note, check your human privilege! (Centre square).

 

Awww! In 7 of the lines I had 4/5, but no full ones. Also "not a redhead"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kiamia said:

Awww! In 7 of the lines I had 4/5, but no full ones. Also "not a redhead"?

Not that South Park was the first to make fun of redheads, but:

"...For a class presentation, Cartman delivers a hate speech, against what he calls "gingers": people with red hair, freckles, and pale skin due to a disease called "Gingervitis". He describes them as being disgusting, inhuman, unable to survive in sunlight, and having no souls. When Kyle points out that he too has red hair, Cartman says that there is a second class of redheads, the "daywalkers", who have red hair but not pale skin and freckles.

...

The episode inspired "Kick a Ginger Day" at Wingfield Academy in Rotherham, Yorkshire, where red-headed students faced discrimination based on their hair color. Parents of the discriminated students launched a Facebook group protesting the offending students in an attempt to end the bullying. One mother pulled her 13-year-old son from the school until she could be assured that the discrimination would stop, saying "My son rang me and said kids were kicking him, saying it was National Kick a Ginger Kid Day. He was scared so I went to get him out of school." One father was disgusted with the way students treated his 13-year-old daughter based on her hair color, and reported that she received bruised legs from beatings, stating "She should be able to go to school without having to worry about being kicked in the corridor." School staff "strongly reprimanded" the offending students.[5] A school spokesperson declared the incidents "deplorable acts" and stated that the entire institution was warned that students who continued such discrimination would also be punished.[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Kids

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kiamia said:

Awww! In 7 of the lines I had 4/5, but no full ones. Also "not a redhead"?

I have more of a problem with "support a mainstream political party". Supporting an ideology outside of the mainstream of your society does not make you disadvantaged. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I have more of a problem with "support a mainstream political party". Supporting an ideology outside of the mainstream of your society does not make you disadvantaged. 

But it arguably means less connections. Not supporting a mainstream political party would be a hindrance to receiving a number of patronage appointments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, providence said:

But it arguably means less connections. Not supporting a mainstream political party would be a hindrance to receiving a number of patronage appointments.

So? If it means that much to you then you wouldn't support a fringe political party. Ideology is, at least party, a choice. Certainly patronage of a political party is a choice. 

 Supporting the Nazi Party of Canada doesn't make you disadvantaged – it makes you an asshole. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlockedQuebecois said:

So? If it means that much to you then you wouldn't support a fringe political party. Ideology is, at least party, a choice. Certainly patronage of a political party is a choice. 

 Supporting the Nazi Party of Canada doesn't make you disadvantaged – it makes you an asshole. 

I disagree - not about the Nazi Party, but let's say someone feels strongly about supporting the Green Party, but also wants to be a judge/bank president/on a federal board etc. They shouldn't have to abandon principles to support the Liberals to reach their career goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, providence said:

I disagree - not about the Nazi Party, but let's say someone feels strongly about supporting the Green Party, but also wants to be a judge/bank president/on a federal board etc. They shouldn't have to abandon principles to support the Liberals to reach their career goal. 

Why not? Is someone who dislikes social decorum under privileged? Why should they have to abandon principles and act with social decorum to reach their career goal? 

And on what grounds are you discerning between different fringe political parties? If both the Nazis and Greens are fringe then surely they're both underprivileged by your definition? 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Coolname said:

so close to a perfect score

Did you fail at "human?"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Did you fail at "human?"

definitely not, I have interests on my resume to show that I am human

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Yes, you just need to have completed 60 credit hours. Otherwise they don’t care if you drop a class. 
    • Sorry, L2 was 3.96
    • I imagine the majority of people don't fill out this section actually (don't quote me on this though cause I could be wrong). Or if they do, a large portion of them really don't have an entirely valid reason for doing so. They simply do it cause it's an option which they think will improve their chances of being admitted. I know for myself anyways, none of the four categories really applied to me, and I wasn't about to make up some poor excuse for why I was "disadvantaged" during my undergrad (although I understand that is not the only reason why someone may fill out Part B). Don't get me wrong though, that's not to say there aren't many cases where people don't have a valid reason! I have heard some pretty crazy situations where the individual has every reason in the world to fill it out. **My apologies, forgot this was the accepted thread, please delete
    • A really big yacht vs a slightly smaller yacht, I think is the main difference in pay.
    • Others with more experience feel free to chime in, but I'd negotiate. They've spent a year vetting your work and offered to hire you back. This means they like you, your work is competent enough, and they've already spent time and money training you to become this competent. In short, they're unlikely to walk away at the first sight of negotiation. You've already found out they're offering you bottom of the ladder pay (though be careful with wide averages and practice types), so you're not being unreasonable with asking for more. Last, negotiation can help bring out certain benefits you'd enjoy in lieu of extra pay, that would be cheaper for the employer. For example, maybe some commission from work you bring in, or insurance benefits, gas expenses (they can write those off as a business expense), etc. So don't be afraid to get creative (within reason).

×
×
  • Create New...