Law school. In class, someone made an intervention saying that Law should remain exclusive because otherwise we wouldn’t get jobs. Simple application of the concept of rarity: the fewer understand the complexity of the legal language, the more sought after our services, the more we can charge! This got me thinking about the role of the Bar association, and, in parallel, of the Collège des Médecins. Theses two professional bodies represent the interest of their constituents. What are these interest? As my classmate said, to perpetuate the exclusivity of the profession, ensuring the members prosperity down the line. Under the cover of concern for quality, the high standard for accession to practice and the stellar yearly fees propagate elitism and are nefarious for the advancement of knowledge in society, for citizenry and politization. If people don’t know their rights and recourses lawyers can

a)Charge them a lot of money for it.

The parallel with the Collège des Médecins concerns access to justice and access to health care. What is the position of the Collège des Médecins concerning universal health care? Its president, Yves Castonguay, advocates for partial privatization. What is the position of the Canadian bar concerning legal aid? Superficial research indicates that it lobbies for a reform of legal aid -the accession threshold is so low that you have to be 8 680$ BELOW poverty line to have access. But not explicitly for a higher threshold of access, which would cover more people. To its credit, the Quebec bar’s supports Educaloi, an initiative to help the public navigate the complexities of law. This is not meant as an exhaustive, final analysis of the positions of the two professional bodies. It’s simply noting their role in relation to democratizing law and medecine, two instruments of tremendous power. Looking at the position of the professional bodies is a good indicator of the level of anxiety of its members in relation to opening up knowledge.

b)Keep them from questioning the current legal order.

Perpetuating legal ignorance is great for social apathy. Understanding law is understanding that is it sometimes arbitrary, sometimes value-based, sometimes protecting the interest of those who make the law.

Two reservations must be addressed

How is this not populism? Populism: A belief in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people. It is. I believe in my neighbor, my uncle on social welfare, my ex-colleagues at the call center, the dep owner who smokes in the back and thinks we don’t smell it.

Do people really want to know their rights? However contemptuous this assertion, one must be careful not to impose the fiction of a people oppressed by structural ignorance waiting to be liberated. It is good to keep in mind the thin line between democratizing knowledge and imposing a civilizing mission.

However, I choose to believe in democratizing legal education over perpetuating an exclusionary tradition. Because everyone wants to know their rights at the customs, when they get divorced, when their landlord hikes up the rent. It is an issue of social justice, of redistribution of wealth (education is wealth, that doesn’t need to be proved right?), and, ultimately, a bet that future generations will have an active role in reshaping the inequalities that do not have place in a rich, post-industrialized country.

That’s why I will try to post summaries of the legal information I am acquiring.

Next time, maybe: the notion of Absolute Property, of full powers over goods (particularly sub-categories like intellectual property and land) is where we went wrong, philosophically speaking.