the daily snivel

  Delayed Climax

At 6:30 am, my alarm clock shrieked and this woke up both myself and my cat. The cat immediately proceeded to snuggle up onto my chest and lick my face and lips, which is his sweet little way of saying both "Good Morning," and "Please give me food." I pet the cat for ten minutes before I ran out of time and the licking became unbearable. I slipped into my robe and then fed the cat.

At 6:40 am I stumbled into the shower, bleary and cranky. Even at that hour there wasn't enough hot water. I'm sure I muttered under my breath throughout the washing, rinsing, lathering and shaving. A shower without both sufficient water pressure and sufficient hot water is simply being naked and wet.

At 7:00 am I threw some clothes on and put together the books, binders and stacks of caselaw I required for my trial, and shoved them into a backpack. As I was in a hurry, I brought my sandals in a bag, but for some reason wore black socks and black dress shoes with a pair of shorts. Fashion woe.

At 7:10 am I was out the door. I hit the drycleaners, picked up my suit, my shirts, and my ties, and got onto the bus.

At 7:30 am I was at the Clinic. I hustled and put on my suit, grabbed my briefcase (which I keep stashed there), a freshly pressed tie, and my nobby shoes.

At 7:50 am I was on another bus.

I made it to the Provincial Offences Court at 8:10 am. Neither my client nor my co-counsel had yet arrived, so I paced and collected my thoughts and read through my trial binder. I flipped through the tabbed sections and mentally rehearsed. I was attempting to look calm and composed despite the fact that adrenaline (more correctly, epinephrine) was causing me to feel excited and jittery and anxious to begin litigatin'.

At 8:30, I was still alone. I highlighted some pieces of caselaw just in case I needed to submit them to the Court and the prosecutor.

My client came at 8:45. I didn't know what had happened to my co-counsel, though it turns out she had slept in after a night of (shall we say) festivities, but was diligently racing over to the courthouse in a cab.

I escorted my client to the courtroom. It was 8:50 am. We ran into the prosecutor, who asked us if we wanted to talk about the matter privately. We agreed and met in a private interview room.

The prosecutor came into the negoatiation hitting hard, stating that she was willing to cut my client some slack if he plead guilty but that no one could believe he didn't see X Y Z.

I countered that, in fact, not only did my client not see X Y Z, but that they were not there at the relevant time when my client did A B C, and alluded to serious flaws with what the police witness would be testifying to.

She suggested we look into a reasonable solution. She left.

I could vaguely hear voices in the hallway.

I was introduced to the police witnesses. They left. An offer was put before us. I had a chance to talk to my client about his feelings. We were ready for trial, but a reasonable resolution was in place that, if successfully concluded, would result in the charge being withdrawn. My client would be happy, the prosecutor would be happy, and the cop would potentially be unhappy, making me feel even better.

We agreed to pursue the resolution.

At 9:15 am, we re-entered the courtroom so as not to keep the Justice waiting any longer than necessary. The matter was adjourned, pending resolution.

My trial binder sits, waiting, just in case it is ever needed again.

I have mixed feelings about not being able to go to trial, but I'm happy for my client. There are no sure things in litigation, and this resolution would get all parties what they're looking for. And, to be sure, there will be more trials (and more shining, overstuffed, heavily tabbed trial binders) in the future. 

  Several short paragraphs about Rob

1. I am precisely thirty-six hours away from my trial. I am prepared, I am confident, and we have a really good chance of winning. But the Crown is mulling over a proposal we made to have the charge withdrawn, and I'm still wrestling with whether it's better to compromise via resolution or go ahead with the trial. It's the client's instructions based on good advice that count, but all the advice I can give doesn't resolve the question of what's best for the client.

2. I sent out a package to a certain law student I'm twitterpated over today. It included a beautiful journal, some pens, a Pocket Protest Kit (from James Spyker), a book of surly postcards, a card, and some mad money so that my friend (who is not being paid for this internship adventure) can buy herself some beer and subway tokens and stamps and so on. I was glad to put it all together, and hope it will make her feel splendid inside, but you just never know, do you?

3. On Monday, June 21, it will be "call day" for all the articling positions in Ottawa. All the students who are going into their third year will be spending the morning sitting by their telephones, anxiously awaiting the decision of whether anyone is going to hire them. I'll be among them. I'll have the potential to be called by any or all of four firms. I interviewed with five -- and one just sent me a rejection letter. On the other hand, we wouldn't have much in common. One of the partners made a sexist joke during the interview, and I just sat in awkward silence for a few moments before stammering something about bringing an alternative, feminist perspective to their family law practice.

4. Several people, one of whom being my older sister, are of the distinct impression that one of the new summer caseworkers rather fancies me. I cannot exactly disagree, though I've been trying to rationalize her flirtation as just innocent flirtation (even I can be randomly flirty when I'm in a good mood) rather than 'I like you' flirtation. She's a bright, funny, pretty gal, and I like and respect her, but there just isn't that spark when we talk, and I think if we got to know each other we'd find we don't have that much in common. Chemistry is a subjective thing, though I'm willing to admit I'm stubbornly refusing to add any catalysts of my own. I sort of snuffed the idea out last Friday when she asked me (while a bunch of us were out) whether I was single. I said I was, but that I really didn't have time for dating or relationships. Which, unfortunately is true. Deep inside, of course, my heart also belongs to someone else (who doesn't really have time for dating or relationships).

I'm sure you're tempted to ponder about the irony of caring about someone who may or may not ever reciprocate, and all the while you're also aware of someone else caring about you, and how this creates a long chain of unrequited affection, and how that is so typical. On the other hand, uh, well... shut up, stupid! 

  SHAMELESSLY REPRINTED HERE

An open letter to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper re. reproductive rights & the Charter by Supreme Court Justice Claire L'Hereux-Dube et.al.

Can we trust you, sir, to defend the Charter?

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - Page A21 - Globe and Mail

We are deeply concerned about recent statements by senior members of the Conservative Party that bring into question your party's commitment to women's reproductive freedom and to the freedoms that Canadians enjoy under the Charter of Rights. We hope that, as party leader, you will shed light on the Conservative position by answering three questions.

1. Would a Conservative government protect a woman's right to choice?

Women have enjoyed the right to abortion for more than 16 years, since the Supreme Court's 1988 Morgentaler decision. But recently Conservative health critic Rob Merrifield called for women to receive counselling by persons other than their physicians before terminating a pregnancy. He said that counselling may be "valuable" for women contemplating abortion because "people who take part in it may only be seeing one side of it." Since third-party counselling already is available to women, we take it he meant that such counselling should be mandatory before an abortion.

Why have Conservatives singled out this one medical procedure as beyond the capability of doctors to appropriately counsel their patients? Why is this choice beyond the capability of Canadian women to make?

We had hoped, Mr. Harper, that you would have stated that Mr. Merrifield's views do not represent Conservative Party policy, and fire him as party health critic. Instead, you indicated that a Conservative government would put a private member's bill on women's reproductive choice to a free vote in the House of Commons -- but that you have "no intention of discussing the topic during an election."

Yet an election is exactly the time when we need to know. You are on the record as being "pro-life" and believing that abortion should only be permitted in "exceptional circumstances." Canadians have a right to know whether you would vote to turn women who require abortions, and physicians performing them, into criminals.

2. Would a Conservative government uphold the Charter's fundamental guarantees or override them?

Indeed, many Conservative policies view the Charter of Rights not as a fundamental guarantee for all Canadians, but rather as an obstacle to be circumvented in the drive to remake Canada's social fabric. You have regularly indicated a willingness to use the Charter's notwithstanding clause to override Charter rights and to put the state back into the bedrooms of the nation. Canadians respect and cherish the rights and values that the Charter guarantees. Extensive use of the override places rights squarely back where they were before the Charter was enacted: in the hands of a potentially hostile majority.

3. Would a Conservative government respect the Supreme Court, or compromise its independence?

We are also concerned that the lack of respect shown in Conservative members' public comments about the Constitution may extend to the Supreme Court. Your justice critic, Vic Toews, has stated that Supreme Court justices are "political actors" and "politicians." The Conservative Party handbook indicates that, if elected, you would create a parliamentary committee to review every Supreme Court decision and override the court where the committee considered the ruling in error.

Formalizing parliamentary review would undermine the court's independence and compromise its ability to protect Canadians. The court is one of Canada's most respected institutions. Subjecting its rulings to political approval would upset the delicate balance of power between the Supreme Court and Parliament, the hallmark of constitutional democracy in Canada.

Mr. Harper, you are running to become prime minister, the most powerful office in the land. Where you stand on these fundamental issues will determine the rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy far into the future; they deserve to know your plans. We look forward to your response.

Joseph Arvay; Marc-André Blanchard Karen Busby; Rebecca Cook; Marlys Edwardh; Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens; Rebecca Johnson; Anne LaForest; Claire L'Heureux-Dubé; Kathleen Mahoney; David Matas; Ronalda Murphy; Simon Potter; John Rosen; Clayton C. Ruby; Lorne Sossin; Harvey Strosberg; John A.L. Yogis.
 

  "Don't count on me, love, I'm fickle and a little bit strange, and I hunger for change."

I went out to see a fantastic East Coast musician last night at the Manx Pub here in Ottawa. Her name is Amelia Curran, and she's the sister of a good friend of mine. She's here from St. John's, Newfoundland, for the summer and is touring all over the area until August. As much as I went out last night to get a feel for her sound, and especially to be supportive, I was ultimately extremely moved and impressed by her music. She's been nominated three times for best female artist at the East Coast Music Awards (a big to-do, as the East Coast scene in is where some of Canada's best music is played). She has a voice like Beth Orton (but more sultry and less tremorous), and writes moving, acoustic music that blends the sounds of folk and jazz.

I was moved to buy one of her albums last night, and it's been playing non-stop on my iPod ever since. It's called 'Lullabies for Barflies,' which is her newest album, but I know I'm going to have to buy the others now as well. It's just that good, and not all of the songs she played last night are on that particular album, which leaves me wanting for more.

Crass commercialism follows: go ahead and buy one of her albums. You'll be supporting a great independent artist, and they've got my personal guarantee of goodness.

http://www.freds.nf.ca/artists/CurranAmelia.html

There are samples at her website: http://www.ameliacurran.com