In normal circumstances, a lawyer coming up with this shit would be dropped by their client, disbarred and ends up living in a trailer park collecting tin cans…
…in this world, you know he’s just received a call from Mar a Lago.
I remember the CBC wanted to fire Sook Yin Lee over this film; created a fuss here in Canada. Lots of listeners and Celebrities supported her and the CBC relented . Seemed an un-CBC position to take
Gods, where do I start. First of all neuro-diversity is NOT brain damage. Get that right from the start: Brain damage, autism, and mental health are three different things! There are parallels I am sure but they are NOT the same thing. And don’t use words like retard or short-bus, do we really need to have that debate in twentyeffingtwentyeffingone?!
Secondly, people with these conditions (Hey, this is a parallel!) are all way more likely to be a victim of a crime than a perpetrator. By A Huge Margin! This is true for any group (race, economic class, religion…) that is associated with crime, all people you meet are most likely not going to be a criminal.
Thirdly, abusing incompetence defense like this weakens it for these cases where it is really needed to protect people who really need it.
And fourthly we all know this is a bad faith argument. If a lawyer really feels their clients were coerced or driven to criminal behaviour they would sue the guilty party or even cooperate with the DA/prosecution to throw them under the bus to save their client.
< i am not a lawyer > , but , as far as i do know , the TRUTH is the best and an absolute defense against defamation , but it is not a good defense against criminal trespass < end ianal >