If the wrath of the humorless is a satirist’s badge of honor, we’ve been awarded the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for our recent post “Are you a cissie?”
The post (trigger warning!) is a spoof of compulsory workplace “trainings” proselytizing the fashionable notion of gender issues über alles. Our point was that although genderism may be a harmless enough ideology for personal life, it’s intrusive, irrelevant and potentially offensive to foist it on people we’re supposed to be defending from criminal prosecution.
OMG, the cries of “Homophobic!” “Racist!” “Heavy hearts, anger and anguish!” “Resistance to the Truth!” that went up from a claque of goodthink colleagues. Grievances! Complaints! Running to Mommy Management! Of course we support free speech, they harrumph, but not when it offends us!
Apparently they skipped First Amendment in law school for fear of being traumatized. But if criticism of their beliefs makes them anguished and apoplectic, how in the (real) world do they function as lawyers?
Judge: The defendant Joe Blow is charged with burglary.
Defense Attorney: Harassment! Discrimination! My client is disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system!
Prosecutor: You can say that again. He’s got eleven priors.
Attorney: How dare you put my client in the unfair and exhausting position of having to defend himself! You disgusting white supremacist! You – you- phobe!
Prosecutor: But I’m not white –
Judge: Um, counselor, I believe the People have already offered a conditional discharge and a program.
Joe Blow: I’ll take it.
Attorney: I’m telling on you to the Bar Association! I’m filing a Title VII complaint! You’re gonna get in trouble!
We shudder to think what their appellate briefs look like:
It is with a heavy heart, anger and anguish that appellant responds to the bigoted, ugly People’s denigration of my client as “guilty.” This belittling, demeaning label is deeply offensive to Mr. Blow who has expressly stated his preference for being called not guilty.
Yup, disagreement is harassment. Criticism is discrimination. Diversity is conformity. Newspeak is reality.
I generally like your blog and have emailed you to tell you so on different occasions. I haven’t made a complaint to anyone other than you about the column in question, but I think it was beneath your standards. The “cissie” wordplay was cringeworthy and if not intentionally homophobic, tone deaf. I’d say the same concerning the fictitious conversation with a defendant. We do have gay and transgendered clients, and they are routinely abused and discriminated against by the police, prison staff, court staff, and other prisoners. To the extent you equate mere criticism or disagreement with censorship, you are basically asking to deprive your critics of a voice.
A prime example of the upside-down reasoning we’re satirizing. Our “mere” critics have filed internal complaints and started proceedings. And who said anything about censorship?
Would that I could write that in a brief and actually accomplish something for a client. Instead, I’m forced to work with the evidence and the law and compelling argument. How tedious!
My offer, for what little it’s worth, stands. And I trust I’d not be alone in heeding the call to man/woman/whatever the ramparts!
Pingback: Burn The Squawk, Cries Legal Aid Society’s Fragile Waifs | Simple Justice
Yes! Yes! Yes! Don’t stop, continue! Thank you so much! To those who say that you were rude or wrong I say “Fuck you!”
Rock on. Silliness abounds.
Sad to see this particularly in our field.
Pingback: Free the Squawk! - Windypundit
Zealously. Defend. Clients. There are NO other considerations. Your writing illustrated that required obsession with much creativity and satire. If your current employers fail to subscribe to this bedrock principle, it is the less for them; but your talents transcend your current “gig” in any event.
Pingback: Squawk is interrogated | Appellate Squawk