The Wisdom of (the) Justice

Sometimes people who are highly respected for their mastery of certain prescribed formulae, as in a deep familiarity and knowledge with the law, for example, allow the respect in which they are held to lead them in directions where their lack of understanding of other matters betrays them as shallow thinkers. It is one thing to have a comfortable position as a leading authority in the meting out of justice through a thorough knowledge of jurisprudence; another to pose as being wise in other disciplines.

One who is wise generally knows enough to hold their counsel. The wise listen, they do not declaim unnecessarily or pose as knowledgeable even while protesting they have little knowledge of what they propose. In the instance of a public personality representing a high public office, someone whose pronouncements will most certainly be repeated ad nauseum through the news media, one would do well to be circumspect in offering opinions outside their field of expertise.

When Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin speaks publicly of the need for better representation within the law for those whose incomes preclude them from legal advice at times of need, she speaks with authority. When Ms. McLachlin speaks at a gathering of business elites and her topic verges off into trade and development and international trade agreements, linking their outcomes to the impact on women, the result was a puzzling question mark.

She issued a caveat, that she knew little about the subject. Yet she felt inclined to broach it. It is difficult to see why she led in that direction, although where she was coming from was readily determined. As a woman who has accomplished much in her field of expertise, she is recognized as a role model and a feminist. As a feminist she must on occasion lead as a woman and bring attention to issues revolving around the empowerment of women.

But international trade is not one such issue; it is a genderless issue. If her concern is the plight of women living in rural areas of under-developed countries why not concern for the entire populations living in rural areas of under-developed countries, men and women? If trade liberalization ends up benefiting emerging economies it is the entire workforce, whether urban or rural that will benefit.

In any case, increasingly people living in urban areas are invariably migrating to the large urban centres where most of the manufacturing opportunities arise. The world's populations that have traditionally lived impoverished lives have seen a gradual upturn in opportunities. Those who are involved in the issues of trade agreements claim knowledgeably that free trade brings gradual changes that benefit everyone.

For as long as consumers can recall there has been an increasing cornucopia of goods available, ranging from agricultural consumables to a wide variety of manufactured products on retail shelves at credible prices more available now than ever before, ensuring job prospects for greater numbers of people. The rising tide does lift all boats, inevitably.

There has been a wide enough reaction to Ms. McLachlin's throwaway lines to discredit her as an intellectual outside the sphere of her line of work. And this is something she has brought on herself, whether through a disrespect for the intelligence of others, or simply because she felt she had nothing better to toss in for discussions' sake.

Her reputation has suffered a bit of a bruise, thanks to her very own reckless abandonment of the principle of speaking only of what you can feel confident you know well enough to expand upon.