Elsa Johnson (3L)

Describe your role in The Wizard of Laws.
I have two roles: I play the eccentric mother of our heroine (who I suspect hits the cooking sherry pretty hard behind the scenes) as well as a narrator who just can’t quite get it right.

What should be the theme song of your life?
“You can call me Al” by Paul Simon.

Tell us about a moment that made you laugh so hard you cried.
Well it was pretty funny watching my sweet and unworldly mother-in-law find out via an excruciatingly detailed explanation by the aesthetician that the “Brazilian” she had booked was not in fact a type of massage.

If you could get paid to do anything, what would it be?
I think it’s pretty clear that I would be a lingerie model. I don’t think it’s any secret that I am essentially just the Dutch Canadian law student version of Heidi Klum.

In your acceptance speech for the Oscar that you’re inevitably going to win for your law show performance, who will you thank first?
Steve from Hello My Friend Café.

Which fictional lawyer do you admire most?
Avery Tolar from The Firm because he shows that you can come back from the Bad.

What was your New Year’s resolution? How’re you doing so far with it?
I resolved to be kinder and less cynical. If only it was as easy as buying the Timmy H’s of the person behind you in line. It’s hard but I guess it’s worth it. After all, babies, you’ve gotta be kind.

Which Disney princess do you most identify with?
You show me a gangly, six-foot solid princess with a penchant for truly unfortunate hairstyle choices and I’ll show you my Disney alter-ego.

How ‘bout Disney villain?
I would like to say Iago – we find out he’s actually good in the Aladdin sequels – but I’m afraid I’m more like Jafar. He loves power, plotting and flowing silk robes.

Would you rather have the power of flight or invisibility?
Definitely flight. That way I could beat Chantel Cabaj at something.

What is one thing you want to accomplish in law school before you leave?
Beat Chantel Cabaj at something.

Dave Lloyd (1L)

Describe your role in The Wizard of Laws.
Toto, the wisecracking bystander who becomes very, very frustrated with the people in the Land of Laws. Basically, I think I’m smarter than everyone in the Land of Laws, but Dorothy never gives me a chance to shine. But I still love her.

How do you feel about your role?
I’m reluctant to admit this in view of the accolades I’ve received (alcohol-fuelled as they may have been): I love my role because I’m not really acting. I was typecast. Also, I may get to wear a onesie, which is pretty awesome.

What has been your most memorable/embarrassing moment on stage (this role or others)? In my High School production of “The Magic Flute,” I blew into the flute and the set fell down. I said “Wow, this flute is powerful!”

What should be the theme song of your life?
“How can I sing like a girl (and not be stigmatized by the rest of the world)?” by They Might Be Giants

Tell us about a moment that made you laugh so hard you cried.
Most recently, when my wife showed me the special “THEN WHO WAS PHONE?” day on Cheezburger. And also, when some of the actors recorded a line run-through at the CJSR recording studio, I made Adeel Mulla laugh very hard by adding a particularly human inflection when my character “barks inquisitively,” and that made me laugh very hard.

If you could get paid to do anything, what would it be?
Sing and play songs on my acoustic guitar; teach people around the English-speaking world how to write better; build bicycles; play nerdy video games; and watch movies that have aliens in them. Basically, the things I was doing before law school but that didn’t pay (enough). Failing that, work at the SLS Criminal Law Project over the summer.

In your acceptance speech for the Oscar that you’re inevitably going to win for your Law Show performance, who will you thank first? Mark Facundo and Alex Seaman for insisting that I join Law Show. And my tuxedo cat for teaching me to keep it real.

Which fictional lawyer do you admire most?
Far and away, Alan Shore.

What was your New Year’s resolution? How’re you doing so far with it?
To treadmill once a day. Ask Law Show, my factum, and that cold I had in January how it’s going.

Which Disney princess do you most identify with? Ariel. Long red hair like I used to have.

How ‘bout Disney villain? Jafar. I’m not allowed to say why.

Would you rather have the power of flight or invisibility? Invisibility, because I could just sneak onto airplanes, duh.

What is one thing you want to accomplish in law school before you leave?
Get into the locker room on the first swipe. Or catch “Hello My Friend” Steve on a bad day. Neither seems likely, but I shoot for the stars.

SOPA: Same Overreaching “Piracy” Argument
Adam Norget (2L)

The Stop Online Piracy Act, commonly known as “SOPA”, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011. The preamble states that it is “a bill to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes”.

At first glance, you may be thinking: “That sounds like a noble enough goal… but Adam, what does ‘and for other purposes’ mean?”

Unfortunately, it is exactly those sneaky four little words which could have a drastic effect on free speech, expression, and innovation. Under the guise of bolstering the enforcement of intellectual property rights of Americans, the bill proposes the identification of allegedly “rogue” websites which are suspected of violating U.S. IP laws through posting (or even linking to) copyrighted content, which are then subjected to various forms of censorship. The bill would empower American courts to order credit card companies to cease doing business with the websites, to order search engine companies to stop linking to the sites, and even order Internet Service Providers to block their customers from accessing them.

So what is the problem with stricter enforcement against potentially infringing websites? Completely setting aside the overriding censorship concerns, the problem is that many legitimate websites and businesses which contribute artistic, academic, or social value to global society have the potential to be ‘blacklisted’ due to potential copyright violations, notwithstanding any efforts the websites make to police their content. Ever use Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, or YouTube? If this bill passes, enjoy them while you can because even if they aren’t blocked outright, they certainly won’t be the same.

Now, you may be thinking at this point: “Adam, is this really that bad? This is an American bill, it has no real impact on Canadian online businesses!” Well, that brings us to the real kicker.

Under SOPA, all websites with domains ending in “.com”, “.net”, or “.org” are treated as “domestic” (American) websites, regardless of where they are actually based. Further, SOPA ignores that IP addresses are assigned by regional, not national entities. Wouldn’t you know it, the IP addresses for the United States, Canada, and twenty Caribbean nations are assigned by the American Registry for Internet Numbers, which SOPA also considers to be “domestic” in nature.

It would seem that the “other purposes” referred to in the preamble to SOPA include not only drastic censorship, heavy-handed policing of the internet, and a blanket attack on the freedom of expression, but also an unapologetic and unprecedented assumption of jurisdiction over Canadian websites which are not infringing any Canadian intellectual property laws.

As University of Ottawa professor and Canada Research Chair of Internet & E-commerce Law, Michael Geist, aptly put it, SOPA could “cause enormous harm to the Internet and freedom of speech”.

We have succumbed to American political pressure with respect to IP matters for long enough (see Bill C-11) and it is time to take a stand against the overreaching arm of American law.

The Economics of Stealing from the Interweb
Kent West (2L)

SOPA (The Stop Online Piracy Act) is legislation introduced into the US House of Representatives in an attempt to curb the expansion of online piracy and the trafficking of stolen content, especially music, movies and games. This bill empowers the Justice Department to take measures such as ordering internet service providers to block access to offending sites, forcing search engines like Google to disable links to them, or even requiring credit card payment companies to stop transactions to these sites. It also creates a private cause of action for record companies and movie studios to sue offenders directly.

Some major opponents of the bill, including organizations like Facebook, Wikipedia and Twitter, argue that it could impair free speech by potentially targeting sites that unknowingly display pirated content. For example, if somebody were to post a pirated video on their Facebook wall, this could put Facebook as a whole at risk of prosecution.

The legislation is said to be too broad and raises serious concerns about its impact on freedom of speech in a modern digital society. However, SOPA (and its companion legislation PIPA [Protect Intellectual Property Act] in the US Senate) demonstrates a push-back by established media outlets to control the expansion of digital intellectual property theft. This is a major concern and is said to cost the entertainment industry millions of dollars annually. However, in reality, there may be other factors at play.

The internet is still a brand new technology. Much like the printing press, telephone, radio and TV before it, it will take time for both consumers and content providers to discover the internet’s potential. Many of the major players today (ex. Facebook – est. 2004, Youtube – est. 2005, iTunes – est. 2001) are mere infants by almost any standard of industrial growth. Consumers are still figuring out what they want and service providers are trying desperately to find ways to meet these desires.

This digital black market is partly a result of consumers’ inability to legally access content in a manner and form they would like at a reasonable price point. For example, Napster rose to prominence in large part because people wanted quick and easy access to digital music and wanted single songs rather than having to buy entire albums. Before iTunes, Napster was the only group meeting that demand in the marketplace. Sites like Netflix, for example, are attempting a similar feat, but many lack the breadth of content, do not provide effective means of accessing it, or are charging prices that are way too high.

There are valid concerns among service providers whose intellectual property is being stolen and disseminated without their consent. However, the prominence of online piracy is not one of a purely legal nature; it arises in large part out of the economic turbulence caused by the introduction of a new technology, i.e. the internet. If the issues at hand are to be solved, the interested parties must approach the problem from both an economic and a legal perspective.

He Said: THE 1L MOOT: Oral Advocacy is both an Art and a Science
Stephen Dugandzic (2L)

It seems like just yesterday my co-counsel and I successfully argued the merits of overturning the court of first instance’s finding that a post-contractual variation unsupported by fresh consideration could never be rendered enforceable between the parties. To accomplish this on appeal, we had to persuade the court to depart from strict application of the traditional common law requirement of consideration; we faced an uphill battle without any binding case law. Through strong oral advocacy, we convinced the panel to unanimously adopt a policy-based refinement to the doctrine of consideration in the realm of post-contractual modifications, subject to certain qualifications. We thereby rescued our client from imminent insolvency proceedings. How? Our success came from our strong connection with the panel of justices. From one law student to another, peep this high level overview, 1Ls.

Trite, maybe, but – KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE AND COMMUNICATE! Communication is two-way. Strictly reading from a prepared script, head down, is ineffective – engage the panel. In addition to the quality of your argument, presentation is crucial. Your judges want to see you making eye contact. They not only want you to know the law, they want you to make a connection – convey your client’s story and why the court of first instance erred or was correct. Express a narrative, grounded in the law, and show, not tell, why they should rule in your client’s favour. This necessitates having a plan – guide the panel through your submissions. You control which issues to raise. This means, be strategic with your limited time. Don’t simply reiterate your factum – they know what it says. When referencing your book of authorities, allow time for the panel to locate the material before proceeding. You’ll receive instant “bench cred” if you, at your own instance, expressly recognize unfavourable case law. Distinguish it, but don’t ignore it. Expect targeted questions. A “hot panel” of justices is well versed in the facts, and will attempt to get you off-script by poking holes in your reasoning (see: Mark Fernandes!). Anticipate questions and prepare for them, while not being overly scripted; and actually answer questions from the bench. Be cognizant of opposing counsels’ counter-arguments, and address them in your submissions. Importantly, be confident, but never arrogant – treat the bench and your opponents with utmost respect. As a practical matter, note up your case law one more time prior to your moot. Things have been known to change between the date of factum submission and the moot. Never be caught off guard.

Above all – have fun. Whether you want to be a solicitor, litigator, or both, your 1L moot is a learning exercise. Enjoy it and look forward to drinks with your opposing counsel at its conclusion!

She Said: Mooting 101
Angie Riaño (2L)

I remember when I first heard about the 1L moot, I honestly had no idea what a moot was! With none of my family members employed in the legal profession, my parents did not verse me with the Spanish translation of a “moot” at my Colombian family dinners! Nevertheless, like many adjustments to law school, I quickly became familiar with the concept. If I could have a heart to heart with 1L Angie and provide her with some advice based on my first year mooting experience, there are some important points I would emphasize:

The first would be, put things in perspective sister; this assignment is only worth 5 % of your final mark. Okay, while it is important to keep this in mind in order to maintain healthy stress levels, I know that 1L Angie did not want to make a fool of herself in front of three judges, her professor, and worst of all, her peers. Thus, my advice is, be well prepared. Preparation means being able to hold a conversation regarding your topic and effectively presenting the argument without reading verbatim from a piece of paper. Relying on a script as life support will only increase your anxiety and impede your performance.

Last year, only twenty seconds into my moot argument, the judges began to ask me questions completely out of the order from which I had planned to discuss the issues. My prepared “script” proceeded to be out the window! Luckily, my moot partner and I had practiced making arguments in front of one another, intentionally interrupting each other with anticipated questions. We quickly became comfortable with thinking and speaking on the spot.

Next I would advise, be confident. Even if you feel like you might be dying inside, maintain eye contact and try your best to speak slowly and clearly from your diaphragm. Ask yourself, how would Barack Obama be presenting this argument? Channel his vocal energy! Trust that you are familiar with the material and you will be able to confidently respond to the questions posed. Think of this assignment as an opportunity to tell a story; engage the panel and be creative! I can say from the general consensus of my peers last year, the judges were all extremely generous with their compliments and highly delicate with their criticisms. Needless to say, there is no need to stress about being severely chastised if you do not pull off an ideal performance. Also, do not worry about winning the moot. This is not necessarily an indication of which team were the most effective litigants. Finally, have fun! After all, we are all here to learn new skills. Think of this as an opportunity to push your comfort zone, with nearly nothing to lose. Good luck to all the 1L moot teams!

Joanna Waldie and June Ling (3L)

Budgets, and posters, and t-shirts, oh my!

When everyone thinks of being a part of Law Show, they think about being on stage, being blinded by the stage lights, and possibly being embarrassed in front of an audience of friends and families. However, behind the glitz and glamour of it all, are a group of dedicated volunteers on the Production Committee. These volunteers have also devoted many hours of their time into ensuring the success and smooth operation of Law Show 2012.

Many people are unaware of what the Production Committee does, or that it even exists. The Production Committee is responsible for soliciting monetary donations from law firms to cover the operating costs of the theatrical production, organizing and producing the tickets, programs, and advertisements, providing the cast with t-shirts, food, and parties, and putting on a silent auction that generates a significant portion of the show’s revenue, which in turn is donated to charity. Of course, we also work endlessly on show nights to make sure everything looks perfect and that everything is going well off-stage. If you have purchased a ticket or a silent auction item, or enjoyed a snack on show night, our Production Committee is to thank.

Our responsibilities as co-producers started in March 2011. After ending our three-year partnership with the AWCS with a $45,000 donation, we started a new three-year commitment to the Zebra Centre. Our team was off to a bumpy start when we learned that both the Myer Horowitz Theatre and Dinwoodie Lounge were unavailable for all of our intended dates. However, with some quick thinking and negotiating, we were able to secure our present dates.

The summer break gave us some much-needed rest from Law Show, but the planning and organizing started with volunteer recruitment in September. As producers, we are responsible for overseeing the different production portfolios, making sure each portfolio is going well, and assisting with any areas that require extra help. We make decisions as a committee, especially when it comes down to spending the donations we receive from the legal community. Each year comes with unique monetary challenges, such as an increase in the price of cotton (which makes cast t-shirts more expensive), and sometimes these decisions mean sacrificing certain luxuries, such as the food available to the cast. These decisions are difficult, but necessary, as our goal is to minimize operating costs in order maximize our donation to a local charity that does important work in our community.

Overall, it’s been a blast and a pleasure working with all the volunteers. We hope everyone enjoys this year’s show, whether you are in it or watching it. We would like to thank you for your support and involvement, as Law Show would not be the success it has become without it.

We are so proud of our Production Committee. Thank you for the countless hours you have put into planning and organizing Law Show 2012. In our eyes, you are all stars of the show.

Andrew Dixon (2L)

So it’s February, and February is not always a fun time for law students. For 1L’s, factums are due. For 2L’s, it’s just dawned on you that you’re only half way done law school and you still have another year and a half to go. And for 3L’s, you have one foot out the door while trying to figure out if you can go to Coachella, and still pass all of your classes. But for one brief moment in February, there is a night that we all can come together as a faculty: The Carbolic Smoke Ball. It’s a night where we can all forget our worries through the majesty of alcohol and dance, because obviously, that doesn’t happen any other time of the year.

But let’s be honest with ourselves, Carbolic is really just a school dance. But I guess it’s more than a regular dance. There is food, and pretty dresses, and nobody is allowed to flash gang signs. Carbolic then is really just Prom all over again. A Law Prom. You get your nails done, you get your hair did, you sit at tables with your friends, and the cool kids get hotel rooms. Exact same as regular prom, just with more rhetoric and waivers.

1L’s, there are a couple of things you have to know about Law Prom. First, you have to have a date. There is no getting around this. I wouldn’t be caught dead without a date. Can you imagine what that would do for your social life? None of this going with your best friend garbage, that’s lame. Unless your best friend will let you go under her shirt, then it’s cool. But if you don’t have a date, this year there is going to be a photo-booth, where I encourage you to document your shame.

Second, guys have to wear tuxedos. I suggest one that is ill fitted and from Moore’s. They have a rental catalogue. A three piece with a baby blue shirt and vest usually does the trick. Or be the guy who thinks he is counter culture and brings a top hat and cane. People like that guy. And girls, making a bigger version of anything you see on Toddlers and Tiaras is usually a safe bet.

Third, arrive in style. What you drive reflects who you are. Honda Civic? Don’t even try it. Nissan Xterra? Not cool man. Think big, think different, think of something that will cause girls to look past your pimple-y face and braces. I will be arriving in my Mom’s 1999 Dodge Caravan, 20th Anniversary Edition. It shows I’m stylish (it is an anniversary edition), yet practical, frugal, and that I can fit a waterbed in the back.

So I look forward to seeing everyone there this year. It is one of my favorite evenings of the year; there are only so many nights I can break out my Top Hat.

Also, this year Law Prom will be featuring an ice sculpture. So…there’s that.

Ken Kong (3L)

Part 1 can be found in the December (bright green) issue of Canons. We now continue our coverage by answering questions from our readers.

Q: I was forced to veer my car to avoid a pack of zombies, but I lost control and damaged my vehicle. Do I have any recourse?
A: Human-on-zombie violence is the best recourse. That said, here are some alternatives for our weaker readers:
At common law, keepers of dangerous animals are strictly liable for any damage they cause. Therefore, if you were passing through the land of a human who was walled up in their home, and the zombies were kept on that property by virtue of that person’s irresistibly delicious flesh, then you’d have a cause of action against that person! A civil enforcement agency will help you seize their valuable barricades.
Alternatively, if you were to discover their original identity, then you could treat them as a deceased person under the Survival of Actions Act and sue their estate. Little did the Legislature know that section 4 of that Act—which deems causes of action to have existed prior to death—would be the perfect mechanism to enforce zombie-related torts. However, you may encounter difficulties because of the deceased/undead distinction.
Ultimately, there’ll be a strong case for contributory negligence: why didn’t you drive through them?!!

Q: I want to hire zombies to keep kids off my lawn, will I have to obey employment and human rights legislation?
A: As zombies are not persons, they lack the capacity to enter into contracts, including employment contracts. You may simply claim them as property, but beware of superior claims by others. Congratulations, you now have unpaid slaves! (at least until the upcoming and disastrous zombie emancipation). However, you may want to consider de-teething your zombies so as to avoid occupiers’ liability.
Alberta’s Employment Standards Code only applies to “individuals”, and not zombies. Likewise, the Alberta Human Rights Act only protects “persons”, which also excludes the undead. However, the humans you refuse to hire may allege discrimination if they can prove that they can scare children just as well as zombies (so just about every Republican presidential candidate).

Q: I have not left my home in days for fear of attracting liability should I injure a zombie. Are my fears unfounded?
A: Remember, self-defence is your friend, as I have no doubt it will be extended to zombie attacks through the common law. However, as Canada’s first and only zombie law expert, I strongly recommend proactive, unprovoked violence. Alberta’s Animal Protection Act defines an “animal” to “not include a human being”. As zombies are undead humans, they should not attract the protection of this statute, and you may dismember them at your leisure. By avoiding “individual”/”person” terminology, the Legislature was clearly preparing for this apocalyptic eventuality. Why weren’t we warned?! And beware, if the zombie does have a human owner, you may be liable for damage to their property. Look for signs of a collar, or adorable hand-made clothing!

Miss Chiff

Dear Miss Chiff:
I need to apologize to a friend and I’m hoping that giving him a starchy potato dish will do the trick. Got any good recipes?
Gro-sorry
Dear Bud Spud,
Channelling your inner Irish a month early, eh? In that vein, my first recommendation is moonshine: boil potatoes beyond recognition, mash ‘em, distill ‘em, get goosed. But if you’re not ready to roll the dice with unknown proofs, admit you were wrong and bare your soul with bare potatoes: a simple mash should suffice.
MC

Dear Miss Chiff:
I’ve heard Carbolic is a sure thing for singles. Should I splurge on a room or can I make do in a pinch?
Thrifty
Dear Shifty:
Although elevators seem to be the place to grind (to a halt) with a group, our world has stairwells for a reason. If the risk of getting caught with your trousers down by a fellow student doesn’t flip her skirt, borrow a friend’s key, throw a tie on the doorknob, and enjoy your 0.2 of an hour – just hope your friend doesn’t bill you for it.
MC

Dear Miss Chiff:
What do I do if a girl slaps me?
A Boy
Dear Oh Boy,
If it’s the Tetzn8or, just return the slap; she likes it rough.
MC

Dear Miss Chiff:
After the first six months of law school killed my existing relationship, I was propositioned by a 3L at Ave; he said I’d gain precious popularity points by following through. I turned him down, but since then I’ve been thinking about how my reputation starts today. Should I reconsider his offer?
Could be Unsure
Dear Would-be-Punctured:
I’m not sure you’ve interpreted Pat Neil’s words in the way she intended. Besides, as at least one current 3L can tell you from his own experience, getting involved with a third-year during your first year is a poor life decision. Three-Ls are incredibly apathetic towards academics, and not just their own. They’ll tell you just about anything – all lies, of course – in an effort to have you skip contracts for an afternoon delight. You may hear these treasures: “the rule against perpetuities is mere common sense,” “Adams doesn’t care if you don’t do his readings,” and “I’ll be around to help you study in April.”
MC

The Academy

Law jokes, pop culture, Dean Bryden, oh my! This year’s law show was sexy, funny and a little bit provocative, from the tight pants the dancers donned to Toto’s Whitney Houston reference at Saturday night’s show. The Academy announces its winners for Law Show 2012.

Best Actor in a Leading Role (Male): Dave Lloyd (Toto). Dave’s Whitney Houston reference was very edgy and provocative; it’s never too soon to make fun of a dead celebrity.

Best Actor in a Leading Role (Female): Dorothy. Dorothy underwent a major metaphorical transformation, and this was brilliantly manifested physically. The woman she was in the beginning of the journey/play was not who she was at the end of the journey/play. Literally.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Female): The Wicked Judge of the West. Katie Rowe drove chills down my spine as she channeled a first year LRW instructor, throwing a memo back in a junior lawyer’s face, lambasting her because the citations were all wrong.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Male): Adeel Mulla. His fumbling and befuddled portrayal of a legal academic was endearing. It’s such a contrast to his real life persona. Everyone knows Adeel is most certainly NOT a teddy bear, but the most cutthroat law student in Canada. That’s why it’s so impressive that he was believable as a lovable character who wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Honourable mentions: Russell Brand – the resemblance was uncanny – and Jeffrey Nichols, for his portrayal of Zach Galifianakis – the resemblance was uncanny.

Best Director: Jason Buttuls (The Wizard of Laws). Like other Hollywood heavyweights, he does it all: sings, acts, dances and directs. Take a number, ladies, and get behind me.

Best Screenplay: The Wizard of Laws. No one saw that coming.

Best Musical Score: The band’s rendition of Florence and the Machine’s “The Dog Days Are Over.” They deserve very mad props for recognizing that that song is only fun for the first minute or so.

Best Costume: Cameron Mitchell’s Bender costume. If you see this guy in the hall, thump your chest twice with your right fist and then give him a sidewise “peace” sign with your index and middle fingers. Respect.
Honourable mention: The Living Tree. Everybody loves sparkles.

Best Dancer: all of them, for shakin’ what their mamas gave them. They made me wanna dance with somebody. (No, Toto, it’s not too soon.)

Best Singer: Urvil Thakor, for his rhymes.
Honourable mentions: the ladies with solos.

Best Guest Appearance: Dean Bryden. Dean Bryden’s appearance for the last moments of the show might have been the only guest appearance, but that’s not why he wins, I swear!

Predictions for next year’s production: There’s a lot of buzz surrounding John Law. He is sure to take the stage by storm. He’s a frontrunner for best dancer already. There’s a lot of buzz around John Law.

Katie Clackson (3L)

For a movie geek like myself, there are few things as exciting as Oscar Night. It’s not just the designer confections of the red carpet or the hilarity and costume changes that the host – Billy Crystal, not Eddie Murphy – will surely bring. It’s the fun of watching some of the best films and performances of the year be recognized. It’s the joy of wearing your pearls with your pyjamas while eating fancy popcorn and making your predictions for who the winners will be.

If you’re anything like me, you take the nominations seriously and, even more so, your predictions. I’m still choked that Revolutionary Road didn’t get a nod for Best Picture in 2009. To ensure that you go into your Oscar party knowing what’s what (and maybe even walk away with some money in your pockets), Amy Oygen and I have compiled some info for you on the contenders, as well as our predictions for this year’s big awards.

Best Picture:
The Artist – Black and white, (mostly) silent film; critically acclaimed; sexy French actor Jean Dujardin stars and is nominated for Best Actor.
The Descendants – Clooney finds out that his wife (who is in a coma) has been having an affair; wide public appeal; everyone loves Clooney (except Amy).
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close – Based on the book of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer; the story of a boy’s journey after losing his father in 9/11.
The Help – Based on the book of the same name by Kathryn Stockett; box office giant; Emma Stone is adorable and Jessica Chastain deserves the Best Supporting Actress statue for her performance.
Hugo – Kids’ movie; orphan lives in the walls of a train station…mystery ensues; Scorcese directs.
Midnight in Paris – Cute and charming rom-com; the only movie in which Rachel McAdams has ever been unlikeable; standard Woody Allen fare.
Moneyball – A ‘baseball’ movie with not all that much baseball; great movie for baseball lovers who know the back-story, good movie for everyone else; Brad Pitt is in the running for Best Actor.
The Tree of Life – Brad Pitt again, this time with Sean Penn; won the Palme d’Or at Cannes; Amy gives this one rave reviews.
War Horse – Family-oriented epic; boy loves horse, horse loves boy, war breaks out, boy and horse get separated then find each other again; tearjerker (I cried at three different parts); Spielberg directs.

Best Actor:
George Clooney – The Descendants
Demian Bichir – A Better Life
Jean Dujardin – The Artist
Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt – Moneyball

Best Actress:
Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis – The Help
Rooney Mara – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams – My Week With Marilyn

Amy’s Predictions
Best Picture: The Descendants (won the Golden Globe: Drama)
Best Actor: George Clooney (won the Golden Globe)
Best Actress: Meryl Streep (won the Golden Globe)

Katie’s Predictions
Best Picture: The Artist (won the Golden Globe: Comedy or Musical)
Best Actor: George Clooney (won the Golden Globe)
Best Actress: Viola Davis

The 84th Annual Academy Awards air February 26, 2012!

Braden Sheps (2L)

In the wake of a record-breaking NFL season (one which was nearly lost due to a labour dispute), analysts, bloggers and fans alike all have to be feeling giddy about the way the 2011-2012 campaign went down. How could they not? From Aaron Rodgers’ record passer rating of 122.5 to Drew Brees destroying Dan Marino’s seemingly unbreakable passing yards mark with 5476 yards, to the Carolina Panthers’ rookie sensation Cam Newton breaking every rookie passing record known to man, including scoring 14 rushing touchdowns and being the first player to ever throw for 4,000 yards and rush for 500 yards in the same season, this was certainly the “Year of the Quarterback”.

Unfortunately for those three quarterbacks, the records are meaningless as none of them took the field on the biggest stage in sports during the biggest game of the year – the Super Bowl. On February 5th, 2012, the whole world watched as two other quarterbacks, the “self proclaimed elite” Eli Manning and Tom Terrible (Brady), led their teams into battle in pursuit of a different kind of record – the only one that matters – having their names permanently engraved on the Lombardi Trophy.

From the opening kickoff until the final whistle, one quarterback was clearly in control, and the other wasn’t. Brady succumbed to the relentless pressure of the Giant’s pass rush on his opening drive taking a safety; whereas Eli began the game completing his first 9 passes. While Brady had trouble locating his receivers down the stretch, struggling with his ball placement, the confident Manning finished the night an incredible 30-40, none bigger than the 38 yard masterpiece from his own end-zone to Mario Manningham, which catapulted the Giants’ game winning drive. Eli threw for 296 yards and 1 touchdown, and more importantly, he did not turn the ball over on route to his 7th 4th quarter comeback victory of the season.

So what can we take away from this, the “year of the quarterback”? Well, first of all, that the numbers don’t lie. The NFL is a quarterback driven league – if you don’t have a great one, you aren’t going to be successful. Second, Brady hasn’t been able to win the big game since “spy-gate” was exposed. Finally, Archie Manning doesn’t need to begin every conversation with “Hi, I’m Peyton Manning’s father”. Now he has 2 hall of fame worthy sons to brag about.

Eli Manning’s bold pre-season statement that he is among the league’s elite quarterbacks was not hyperbole or conjecture. He managed to do what no other quarterback has ever done – lead his G-Men into Lucas Oil Stadium and beat the Bill Belichick led New England Patriots in the Super Bowl for the 2nd time in 4 years. The naysayers can hate all they want, but Eli is a 2-time Super Bowl MVP! Congratulations to the Super Bowl Champion New York Football Giants!

Michael Corbett (1L)

Ottawa played host to the 2012 All-Star Celebration from January 26-29th. The festivities kicked off with 2nd annual All-Star draft pitting hometown favourite Daniel Alfredsson against Zdeno Chara. In what resembled a school yard draft, Captain Alfredsson, with the support of Assistant Captain Henrik Lundqvist, managed to select every Senator and Swede available. Chara and his Assistant Captain Joffrey Lupul drafted all the Slovaks, Bruins, and Leafs. Amusingly, although Lupul faced a hearty round of boos every time he announced a pick, Chara kept sending him up. The most memorable pick, aside from the last overall Couture, was Carey Price who appeared to be having a little too much fun.

The Skills Competition was the real draw of the weekend. The players participated in 6 events strategically selected to showcase their abilities. They were fastest skater, breakaway challenge, accuracy shooting, obstacle course relay, hardest shot and an elimination shootout.

For the breakaway challenge Patrick Kane donned a cape and glasses scoring on a superman dive while Perry showcased a dazzling deke with a mini goalie stick. Chara and Weber went head to head in the hardest shot with Chara taking the title on a Skills Competition record 108.8 mph howitzer. Steven Stamkos led the way in the elimination shootout going 3 for 3, but the competition as a whole showcased unbelievable stickhandling, skating, dekes, and pinpoint shooting. These guys are exceptional athletes and the Skills Competition provided the perfect opportunity to show off.

Hockey purists generally dislike the All Star game as more often than not there is no defence, no hitting and as a result, no intensity. Setting the bar really low, I tried to find some highlights. Scottie Hartnell—or more appropriately, Carrot Top—was one of the more memorable players. He managed to lay the only hit of the evening and after an assist, skated by the opposing bench goal and eloquently proclaimed, “suck it Phaneuf.” The game also pitted teammate Marion Gaborik against Henrik Lundqvist. Not only did Gaborik shockingly not get injured, he lit up Lundqvist twice. After his first he celebrated with a gutsy and amusing Anisimov impression. His hat trick and 4 points earned him MVP honours.

The best goalie was arguably Tim Thomas who decided to show up rather than protest. He made a beautiful behind the back save with a bankhand swat and appeared quite upset when Giroux scored a cheeky goal. Both captains scored, and Alfredsson received a heartfelt standing ovation after his first of two goals. The game finished 12-9 after team Chara ran away with it in the third period.

The NHL faces a massive difficulty with its All Star games. Although the game is faster paced and players are more skilled than ever before, contact is still a major element of the game. The All Star game doesn’t even involve defence, yet alone hitting, and goaltenders are left out to dry. Although it looks pretty, the game means nothing and is just an extension of the skills competition.

Kent West (2L)

What do you call it when a bunch of law students are locked in a series of small rooms, deprived of alcohol, prevented from doing their homework, and given blunt instruments to use against each other? Well, I apologize for the cheesy punch line, but basically it adds up to a pretty sweet squash tournament. (Note: We didn’t deprive them of alcohol for the whole evening; that would have been downright cruel.)

On January 26, the U of A Law Squash Club hosted its first annual tournament. We were very fortunate to have a lot of support from our members as well as from our extremely generous donors. The event had a great spread of prizes, which included such items as gift certificates from Hudson’s and Sweet Spot, and some awesome Golf Shirts from Miller Thompson. Parlee McLaws generously donated water bottles for all of the participants in the tournament and our title sponsor, Brownlee LLP, covered our operational costs. The club would like to offer a big thanks to these donors for making the event possible.

We broke down into three divisions (A, B and C) with players competing for their respective titles. Everyone put their skills to the test and there were some pretty intense matches throughout the course of the evening. It was astonishing to see the level of play among the participants in all divisions. Not only are there many extremely talented players in general, but the degree of improvement among those who are new to the game was very impressive. There were few favorites going into the tournament and many of the matches were extremely close. In the end, our grand champion was Ben Lotery, taking home the Division A championship. Division B was won by Joshua Jackson and Division C went to Adam Norget. Thank you very much to everyone who was able to come out and play. The tourney was of course followed by the traditional adventure to Avenue Pizza, where we all had a few pints and got to suffer through Josh’s trash talk. Needless to say, we are very excited for next year’s tournament and look forward to some heated rematches!

The Squash Club is continuing with its weekly court bookings every Wednesday from 4-6pm. We look forward to seeing the excellent level of participation that we have had so far this year and encourage anyone else who is interest in coming out to do so. Photos of the tournament can be found on the club’s facebook page under “U of A Law Squash Club”.

Cam Siempelkamp (2L)

A few weekends ago, over 100 law students braved a 6-hour long bus ride to Kicking Horse Mountain in beautiful Golden, BC for the annual Law Ski Trip. As far as I know, everyone made it back. Here are some highlights of the trip for those of you who could not make it.

Kicking Horse was unbelievable! There was a ton of great terrain and the conditions that weekend were unreal. Those of us who somehow managed to drag ourselves out of bed and onto the slopes on Friday and Saturday were greeted each morning with 20 cm of fresh powder and no lift lines. On Sunday the sun came out and we were able to enjoy fantastic views from the summit before heading back to Edmonton.

Kicking Horse is not beginner-friendly, and I had the pleasure of witnessing some spectacular bails. Garret Lee, after receiving what turned out to be some terrible advice about an ‘easier’ way down (*cough* pansy), ended up having a yard sale that required him to trek back up the hill in snow up to his waist to retrieve a ski. Adam Klassen, having just hiked for 20 minutes to access a bowl with 4 feet of untouched powder, only managed to make it down the first 50 meters of the run before somersaulting, losing a ski, and looking for it for a half hour (he did find it). At one point Brooke Degaust found herself hanging in the air by her jacket after attempting to 50/50 a tree rail in epic fashion.

There was also lots of fun off the slopes, from a mysterious bacon tree springing up in the middle of a 1L chalet to Brendan Sawatsky yelling at 3am for people to “give him a reason to live” and proceeding to jump off a third floor balcony into a snow bank. The accommodations were great, and snowboarding directly onto our deck and getting in the hot tub with a beer 30 seconds after arriving was fantastic. As for the evening festivities, the first night there a team of 2Ls proved to be unstoppable at flip cup. The losing teams had to endure the victors chant “ALL WE DO IS WIN” at them over and over after every defeat (not to mention having Shanlee Von Vegesack humiliate them further with her freestyle rapping).

On Friday we went “downtown”, where we had the Rockwater bar – and dancefloor – to ourselves. That night also marked the first annual JJ Hudolin Spirit Award costume contest; the finalists included Lamont Bartlett’s spot-on interpretation of Ginger Superman, a scantily clad entourage of Tomb Raiders, and this year’s champions, the Chokers (you’ll have to ask someone who went to Law Games to get that reference).

If you haven’t yet had the pleasure of attending a law ski trip, you should. Regardless of whether you ski or spend all day sleeping in the hot tub, I guarantee it will be one of the better weekends of the year.

Jennifer Chuang (1L)

On February 7th, members of Fin Free Edmonton gave a talk at the Law Centre. The event, hosted by the Environmental Law Students’ Association, drew an audience of close to 50 people. Fin Free Edmonton is led by the University of Alberta’s very own adjunct Professor Cameron Jefferies. The talk highlighted the cultural, ecological and legal aspects of shark finning.

Shark fin soup, a luxury dish in Chinese culture, is served at weddings as a symbol of wealth and prestige. This dish continues to be popular in China and with Chinese populations abroad. The high demand for shark fin, coupled with aggressive and unsustainable fishing methods, has led to a dramatic decline in sharks around the world. Over the last twenty years, some shark populations have decreased over 95% while others have been completely eradicated. Sharks are especially vulnerable to overfishing as their populations reproduce extremely slowly. As sharks occupy the top of the oceanic food chain, their decrease in numbers can have a devastating impact on all the organisms below, right down to the algae that produces 80% of the world’s oxygen.

International treaties have attempted to address shark conservation. However, these efforts have been largely unsuccessful as the agreements are voluntary and difficult to enforce. The ineffectual nature of international efforts is compounded with a need to increase awareness of animal welfare in China and the simple fact that shark finning is quite lucrative. A single shark fin can be sold for over $700.

Despite the lack of effective action on an international scale, a number of grassroots organizations and community members have been working to remove shark fin soup from local menus throughout North America. Peter Chang, a well-recognized chef from Virginia who specializes in Chinese cuisine, had this to say, “While I appreciate that shark fin soup is a tradition in the Chinese culture, I also recognize that the practice of shark finning is unsustainable and efforts should be made to denounce the practice…We can no longer pretend that this is an acceptable practice and we must not ignore its implications.”

The efforts of Fin Free Edmonton are being echoed throughout the country and around the world. Fin Free Toronto, Shark Fin Free Calgary, Shark Truth (Vancouver), and Hong Kong Shark Foundation are just some of the groups that join Fin Free Edmonton in raising awareness and effectuating change. On the national front, the NDP’s Fin Donnelly launched a petition to ban shark fins in Canada. Municipal shark fin bans have been successful in Toronto, Mississauga, Brantford, Oakville and Pickering.

With an estimated 73 million sharks killed each year for their fins, the state of sharks continues to attract concern from environmental enthusiasts and seafood savants alike. To find out more, find Fin Free Edmonton on Facebook, or follow them @FinFreeEdmonton.

Stephen Straub (1L)

With reading week right around the corner, the mariachi-themed siren call of Mexico will soon be luring you southward towards its warm sandy shores. For many, it is a familiar chorus. Next to the United States, Mexico is the most visited destination by Canadians. In 2010, around 1.6 million of us fled the frozen tundra we call home to bask in the tropical climes of Mexico, which was up 50% from 2006. With the recent murders of Ximena Osegueda and Robin Wood, and the vicious beating of Sheila Nabb, there has been renewed debate within the media and public as to whether Mexico remains a safe vacation destination.

The number of Canadians murdered in Mexico since 2006 has remained relatively stable each year, peaking at 6 in 2011. This is several times less than the number of Canadian deaths in Mexico over the same period, which is a separate question entirely and includes accidents and suicides. In terms of reported assaults, there were 35 in 2010. For the sake of perspective, recall that 1.6 million Canadians visited Mexico last year.

That said, there has been no shortage of horror stories coming out of Mexico over the last few years, and I need not recount them in any detail. It suffices to say that the turf war between the drug cartels has taken a terrible toll on the country, with upwards of 18,000 people murdered in 2011 alone. These figures are reflected in the travel report released by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada that warns travellers to “exercise a high degree of caution” in general, and to “avoid non-essential travel” along the Mexico-US border. The picture is grim, but is there more to the situation than meets the eye?

A closer look at the data reveals the problem with drawing conclusions about specific locales based on aggregate statistics. In an interview with the CBC, Walter McKay, a security consultant who maintains a comprehensive database of narco-related murders, provided some much needed context to the media fervour. He described the violence as being regional in nature, with border states being the most dangerous. Acapulco and Guadalajara were also listed as unsafe, with Puerto Vallarta and Mazatlan being in between. Cozumel, Cancun, and Playa del Carmen were all deemed to be safe. These latter areas have murder rates comparable or lower than many Canadian cities; however, bear in mind that murder is a poor proxy for crime in general, and all the usual precautions should be taken when travelling.

The above is obviously not meant to provide a comprehensive overview of crime in Mexico. Its sole purpose is to add some balance to the misplaced notion that a prudently planned vacation to Mexico is tantamount to risking life and limb. So, if you are heading to Cancun for reading week, seek comfort in the fact that you are technically less likely to be murdered than if you stayed in Edmonton.

Nora Kharouba (1L)

I was asked to write about a documentary presented by the Canadian Lawyers Abroad Chapter at the U of A titled “Is the Crown At War With Us?” My first questions were: who is “us” and what is the nature of this war? Below is a brief review, and hopefully provides some answers to these questions.

The documentary began with the case of Donald Marshall and the Mi’kmaq’s treaty rights to fish. This introduced the screening’s theme : Aboriginal groups’ ongoing struggle to assert their right to fish for sustenance under existing treaties.

Competing views over treaty rights to fish were presented. On the one side the minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) maintains that “conservation of resources is a priority” and as such, the DFO requires all individuals to adhere to fishing guidelines set out by the department. Aboriginal communities responded to these concerns by explaining that they too are conservationists – it is integral to their cultural values to care for resources and they ensure that only what is needed for survival is caught. One Aboriginal individual stated that that the community has instilled fishing regulations of their own through a self-guided fishing licensing system. Essentially, Aboriginal communities want to maintain independence in asserting and regulating their right to fish for sustenance. They feel that the Canadian government is parenting them by attempting to regulate their fishing behaviours under DFO guidelines as opposed to working in partnership and devising fishing regulations that reflect the practices of both Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal communities.

The result of these regulations often lead to charges and convictions for Aboriginal community members. For example, one man was charged with assaulting authorities (who were enforcing DFO regulations) with a weapon. He stated that he was merely using ‘a paddle to ward them off from…kicking, hitting [his] face, and trying to turn [his] boat upside down”. The DFO says it is an “obligation to enforce measures preventing unauthorized fishing. As such, Aboriginal members have been in contact with the legal system for, what they state, ‘doing something that [they] already have a right to do’. This boils down to a problem of interpreting treaty rights in a modern context to determine which rights exist or which have been extinguished. A process of criminalization has emerged due to competing views over fishing practices between Aboriginal groups and the Canadian government. However members of the Aboriginal groups state that they are going to continue “fighting this hard for something that is already [theirs] and will continue until [they] are seen as equals”.

Patrick Harnett (2L)

Developing new and effective drugs is a cumbersome process. From screening millions of compounds for potential therapies to testing their effectiveness, pharmaceutical companies spend billions for the chance to discover the next Lipitor (given my predilection for double cheeseburgers, I’ll need all the help I can get). Double-blind clinical trials—where neither patient nor doctor know if the patient is receiving the drug or placebo—represent the “gold standard” for testing the safety and efficacy of these drug candidates. However, much of the data generated by these trials never see the light of day. Unfavourable data tend to get swept under the rug—and it has public health consequences. Dr. Trudo Lemmens, a professor of Law and Medicine at the University of Toronto wants this to change. Dr. Lemmens visited the Faculty of Law on February 9th to discuss his new research on clinical trial transparency and how open access to the data it produces represents a fundamental component of right to health.

A failure to embrace transparency in favour of the traditional closed approach to data has very real consequences, Dr. Lemmens suggests. In 2004, now-infamous Attorney General Elliot Spitzer successfully prosecuted pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline for withholding safety data for its anti-depressant Paxil. Merck, the second-largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., settled claims they concealed that its pain medication VIOXX caused heart problems for $4.85 billion.

Dr. Lemmens applauds the steps regulators are taking to address problems with the self-reporting of clinical trial data, but urges them to go further. Clinicaltrials.gov, an online clinical trial registry created by the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S., is now the largest registry of its kind worldwide. The EU has followed suit with its EuroPharm database and the World Health Organization has its own registry that catalogues clinical trials. Despite these efforts, Dr. Lemmens emphasized that without proper enforcement, change will be muted. Clinical trials are big business—by some estimates they are worth $50 billion to China, Brazil, India, and Russia alone—and that some countries may be loath tighten regulation. Dr. Lemmens suggests that until full disclosure of all clinical trials is the global norm, transparency remains a challenge.

Pharmaceutical companies have their own concerns with open disclosure. They worry that by disclosing certain trial information, (such as sample sizes or targeted outcomes) they could give away valuable information to competitors. Dr. Lemmens suggests that open disclosure poses no greater risk than other disclosures firms must make to ethics boards and trial participants. He goes on to say that commercial competitive intelligence firms can uncover this information regardless of these disclosures.

Ultimately, Dr. Lemmens argues that an open and transparent clinical trial system should be based on a fundamental right to health. He believes that a human rights argument can effectively pressure governments to balance the rights of the public against the economic interests of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Lemmens admits that this approach is difficult to operationalize. Presently, these types of health and socio-economic issues raise questions of justiciability and create little pressure for governments to act.

In North America, the CDC reported that 48% of the population has taken one or more prescription drugs in the past month. Dr. Lemmens thinks we have a right to know whether the drugs we take to improve our health are living up to that promise. That’s an easy pill to swallow.

Pippa Feinstein (2L)

On the 9th of February, the U of A chapter of Canadian Lawyers Abroad (CLA) brought Chief Wilton Littlechild and Professor Altamirano-Jimenez to the Law Centre. Professor Bell facilitated the discussion.

We were invited by the event organizers to consider access to justice in the context of global and local “development”. The CLA, as part of its mandate, seeks to “bring together Canadian lawyers and law students to help build the rule of law and create strong institutions that are critical in the fight to end inequality and poverty in Canada and abroad” (cla-ace.ca).

Chief Littlechild discussed his involvement in the struggle for access to justice for Indigenous peoples in the international legal arena. He described the long path toward international recognition of Indigenous peoples. Deskaheh, an elected representative of the Cayuga of the Haudenasaunee Confederacy, was one of the first people to bring grievances of Indigenous peoples before the international community. However, he was denied access to the League of Nations in 1923 since he insisted on using his confederacy passport instead of a Canadian or US passport.

This set a precedent for the subsequent decades of marginalization of Indigenous peoples in the international arena. This was partly because their preferred method of self-representation and engagement was not recognized by the contemporary international legal system. It was only in 1977 that the UN provided space for Indigenous participants. This recognition ultimately helped produce the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Chief Littlechild was involved in the drafting process of this declaration to which Canada has only expressed ‘agreement in principle’ and not ratified.

Professor Altamirano-Jimenez discussed power relationships involved in the legal recognition of Indigenous peoples, noting that some of these processes can marginalize certain members and aspects of Indigenous communities. She discussed her work with the Mayagna people of Awas Tingi along the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua and the Maya of Toledo in Belize. In these regions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) have been advocating for mapping of Indigenous lands. The IMF and WB are doing this in part to recognize Indigenous peoples and give them space. However, this is done in ways that are more resonant with western conceptions of mapping and land use than Indigenous understandings.

The mapping process has not been very inclusive, often only involving male Indigenous knowledge-holders. The result is that these maps don’t reflect women’s knowledge (which is an important aspect of Indigenous understandings of their lands). Thus, these maps don’t adequately reflect Indigenous conceptions of their relationships to the land. They are given space, but not the ability to define this space in ways appropriate to them.

Indigenous peoples require recognition. However, this recognition must be sensitive to Indigenous realities. Access to justice in this context must be consistent with Indigenous worldviews and conceptions of justice. Ultimately this will also necessarily include Indigenous conceptions of “development”. Hopefully this principle informs the “development” the CLA seeks to promote.

Michelle Paul (2L)

Dr. Matthew Wynia spoke to the faculty about the ethical issues facing public health administrators and employees during national emergencies. The past decade witnessed a variety of large-scale disasters, ranging from tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and SARS. Emergencies of this scale can overwhelm an entire system. Since the attacks of 9/11 there has been a concerted effort to think through the types of dilemmas that countries may face, and how to deal with these types of emergencies on short notice. While there are no definitive answers yet, Dr. Wynia attempted to provide guidance to public health officials faced with the ethical issues of restricting individual liberty during medical emergencies.

When faced with the possibility of an epidemic, the state may enforce quarantines on individuals, restricting their liberty for an indefinite period of time. People chosen for quarantine may have been exposed to the infection but are not necessarily sick. Dr. Wynia argued that if the state is going to restrict liberty, then the quarantine must be both effective and necessary. For example, when SARS was detected in Canada, approximately one million people were screened for SARS at the Toronto airport. However, not one case of SARS was detected. Quarantine was the most viable choice available to public health officials, even though it may have been of a minimal benefit.

Involuntary quarantines rarely work. For example, in China, a country considered by some to be “collective” by nature, officials in Beijing began discussing the possibility of putting all residents under an involuntary quarantine. The migrant labour population (approx 300,000 people) left to the countryside in response to the news. This mass movement into the countryside frustrated the goal of keeping any infections contained. In the United States, where people have access to guns and vehicles, it would be difficult indeed to contain an entire population within city limits.

Dr. Wynia proposes a voluntary quarantine as a superior solution. In a recent study, about 96% of Americans indicated that they would volunteer to be part of a quarantine if it were necessary. The quarantine must slow down the spread – flatten the epidemic curve – so that the treatment teams can respond. It does not need stop the spread altogether. Mathematical models suggest that even a leaky quarantine would work to prevent the spread of dangerous infections. For example, if only 60% of a city’s population volunteered to be quarantined, it may still be successful in controlling the spread of the infection. Thus, argued Dr. Wynia, public health officials should formulate future epidemic response plans based on a voluntary-quarantine model.

Chantel Cabaj (3L)

It’s February in the Faculty of Law and while the school is a buzz with the “Wizard of Laws,” there are signs of another major upcoming event. Study space is booked solid under the likes of “Fack-time” and the subtle scent of gently-used, musty robes fills the halls. Clearly only one phenomenon can explain these occurrences: the 1L moot.

The first year moot is the time-honored event known for its ability to invoke excitement, anxiety, fear, uncontrolled body movements, voice control issues and relief all in a 40 minute time span. This year in an effort to ease the process and hopefully the collective mental well-being of the first year class, the Faculty is initiating its first “Moot Mentor Program.” The goal of this program is to match each moot team with one upper year student. The upper year student will act as a guide for their team through the oral advocacy journey; identifying potential weaknesses and providing recommendations to the teams as they prepare for the moot (i.e. by being a practice judge). While each upper year student brings a different level of expertise to the field (mine being very little, sorry 1Ls who get me) we all have one thing in common: we survived the 1L moot. It is through this commonality that we hope to shed a little light on the process and make it a bearable and possibly even fun (too far?) experience.

While the focus of the program is to provide the 1L class with oral advocacy guidance, the benefits far exceed this purpose. First, the program provides 1L and upper year students with an opportunity to expand their network and connect with other students. Personally, I’ve always thought that law school’s most redeeming quality is its ability to connect 5 classes of bright, future lawyers (pretty amazing friends to have right?). The only problem is it can be hard for 1L and upper year students to interact given the lack of shared classes and conflicting class schedules. This program will help break down that barrier and will connect students who may not have otherwise have met (think a night at Ave, less the Friday hangover).

Second, the program recognizes that our school has some amazing oral advocates within 2 and 3L, and that those talents should be shared so that we can continue to better the LRW and Competitive Moot Programs. Being witness to a variety of competitive mooters in action, I can only hope to have their current grace, poise and talent when I am 10 years at the bar. Having these individuals share their expertise with current students can only bode well for this year’s 1st year moots and the competitive moots of the future.

Major props are due to Rob Hiseler (3L) and Professor Tami Friesen for spearheading and organizing this initiative. Hopefully this initiative impacts the LRW program in a positive way, and becomes a U of A tradition for future 1L students and the upper year students of tomorrow!

Jordan Lefaivre (1L)

When I walked into Joe Slemko’s guest lecture on February 2nd, I immediately scanned the room. I was on the lookout for law students harbouring a dark passenger. I knew that most of the students came to be informed about investigative blood spatter techniques. One person was there to figure out how to commit the perfect crime. That person was Jenna Carpenter. Her dark passenger happens to have salt and pepper hair. When asked where she went during intermission, she immediately became defensive. She claimed that she was in the restroom. Conveniently nobody could corroborate her story.

She already knew the basic components of committing the perfect crime. Simple things like, taking care of the witnesses, being sure not to leave any prints and most importantly, not to mess with a made man. Thanks to professors Bob Aloneissi and Edmond O’Neill, she also knew many well established legal principles. Most notably, if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit. Little did she know the importance of blood spatter in police investigations.

Enter Joe Slemko. Tireless advocate for the wrongfully accused. Beat cop by day, eternal badass by night.

Slemko spent 7 years of his career as a blood spatter expert for the Edmonton Police Service. Since then, he has become an independent analyst, assisting for the defence on many cases of the wrongfully convicted. Despite providing testimony for the defence, he managed to remain on the force. His support for the wrongfully accused has not been warmly received by his peers. In fact, he has been convicted of insubordination twice. In the face of mounting internal pressure within the police service, he has never compromised his principles. Slemko insists that “most (of his) gratification comes from seeing the wrongfully convicted released.”

Slemko raised some serious concerns regarding police culture. He called attention to officers who “bias their investigations on a totally unscientific basis.” He also qualified the use of blood spatter analysis, claiming that it can be “dangerous” in the hands of improperly trained investigators.

His criticisms of investigations are not limited to blood spatter analysis. They expand to law enforcement as a whole. Such criticisms are why Mr. Slemko “doesn’t get Christmas cards from the RCMP anymore.” Slemko questioned whether officers should provide scientific evidence when they are so easily biased. He called attention to the tunnel vision that investigators often experience. Officers often tend to construe evidence in a manner that corroborates their theory of events. This tunnel vision can lead to unjust convictions. He further highlighted the inadequate training of investigators. A problem which he claims stands the risk of increasing as a younger generation of officers join the police force.

The strength of Slemko’s criticisms never overshadowed his predominant message. All actors in our legal system have the responsibility to strive for a just result.

Jason Buttuls (3L)

I promised that what we would try to give our audience was something Tony-caliber, something you would see on Broadway. What the audience got was not something like The Book of Mormon or Rent, it was better. Better, because they have lasting memories of all their friends acting like fools. There are many performers and volunteers that are worthy of some recognition. While a mention in a Canons article may not suffice, please know that the work of all volunteers is appreciated greatly and that if you supported the show by coming out and watching we thank you for helping the show become a success.

Law Show 2012: The Wizard of Laws was the 17th rendition of Law Show and our first show supporting the Edmonton Zebra Child Protection Centre. A show of this kind requires great dedication and organization. The production side of the operation, led by our producers Joanna Waldie (3L) and June Ling (3L), organized the behind the scenes aspect of the show. The two of them did a wonderful job organizing our large group of volunteers. They often had a thankless job, but they handled both the behind the scenes volunteers and us diva performers with poise and without their leadership the show would have gone off the rails.

The unsung heroes of the show have to be Carly Androschuk (2L) and Katherine Fisher (2L). Their work with the silent auction goes highly unrecognized by most volunteers and theatergoers, but without their commitment to the show we would not have been able to collect the numerous donated items they solicited for our auction. They convinced our supporters to donate many items including outstanding items such as two NHL signed jerseys, a 42” plasma TV, and signed memorabilia of Maurice Richard. I really can’t thank them enough for all their hard work, they are the reason we actually make a large contribution to our charities.

There are a number of other behind the scenes people to thank, Tatum Woywitka (2L) was not only one of our Dorothy’s she was also in control of all the cash as Treasurer of the show. Our Marketing Chairs Megan Mickalyk (3L) and Melissa Smith (2L) helped solicit donations from firms and did a wonderful job. Our Operations Chair Lamont Bartlett (3L/MBA) made sure everything ran smoothly and sold more tickets to Law Show than ever before (at least in my history of the show…). The performers need to know that they should be very thankful for all the work Alex Seaman (3L) and Sara Babich (2L) did to provide them with food, clothing and a venue in which to party. They did a wonderful job and they were under recognized, by the performers at least.

Now, this has so far sounded like a huge thank you letter, so how about an actual synopsis of the show.

Planning for this show started in March. The directors and writers came together to select a theme and to begin writing. After much deliberation and very little decision-making, intervention came in the form of a dream and Wizard of Laws was born. Over the summer a number of meetings between the singing, dancing and band directors spawned our wonderful collection of songs to be performed. The summer had passed and we had collected six somewhat cohesive scenes of acting, a collection of amazing songs with revised lyrics and choreography for the show. Now it was time to lure those 1Ls, which was not that difficult to do with promises of glorious stage time (apparently law students like a spotlight, who knew?). With a cast signed up we were ready to start rehearsals in September. Our performers graciously spent two hours of the their Sundays with us rehearsing.

The big dedication came in the last two weeks prior to the show. Daily five hour rehearsals were the norm, and trust me, some of those rehearsals were so tedious going to class was starting to look like the better option. However, everyone stuck through it and it showed in their performances. The technical team of Cyrus Haghighi (3L), Kathryn Laurie (2L), Russell Ault (2L) and Austin Corbett (1L), began their work in the last two weeks and did a wonderful job creating lighting, backgrounds, and effects for the show. Even though they did not have all their resources until the night before the show they pulled it together.

Curtains were drawn and the show was ready to go, at least it sort of was, Friday may have seen a technical glitch that was saved by our wonderful Acting Director Andrew Dixon (2L) who really saved the day by keeping the show moving and making light of an unfortunate glitch. The issue was easily fixed, the videos were seen, and all was well except for a possible panic attack. Our law show historian led us through a history of the show through four videos of previous shows, my personal favourite being the animated Law King. The show continued with a showcase of talent from our 3L singers, the band, and our dance directors, in a rendition of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” created by the extremely talented Peter Jones (3L). How he mashed up that song and the Law and Order theme song to create “Law and Rainbows” is beyond me.

We then shifted our scene to Edmonton where our impatient pre-law student Dorothy (Tatum Woywitka 2L), and her dog Toto (Dave Lloyd 1L), awaited acceptance to the UofA Law School. After finding out she was accepted Dorothy was whisked away to the land of Laws.

California Girls, one of my favourite numbers of the show, was a great technicolour transition to the land of Laws. The dancers, led by Director Chantel Cabaj (3L), and her assistants Leah McDaniel (2L) and Alanah Wiberg (2L), nailed the dance consistently and it looked great. The altered lyrics of the song created by our Singing Director, Nicole Hartman (3L) and her assistant Kate Whittleton (2L), told us that this UofA Law Show would be “unforgettable” and it truly was. Also, I must thank Urvil Thakor (2L) who not only was an assistant Band Director, but an amazing replacement for Snoop Dogg in California Girls. It might have taken quite a bit of convincing but I think we can all agree that it was definitely a highlight of the show.

Continuing into the Land of Laws, Dorothy ran into a few munchkins that loved to sing and dance, Jackie Anderson (2L), Shanlee Von Vegesack (2L), and Paul Osbaldeston (2L) nailed their singing debut. Unfortunately for our Dorothy she did take out the Wicked Judge of the East with her house when she arrived in Laws. An accident not taken kindly by the Wicked Judge of the West, Katie Rowe (3L), who did an amazing job as our villain. Looking to take revenge the wicked judge quickly looked to punish Dorothy. However, the Good Judge of the North North East, in the form of Zach Galifianakis (Jeffery Nichols (1L) who did an amazing job with this character), stepped in and saved Dorothy and sent her to the Wizard to find the true meaning of the law.

In scene two our team of lawyers was formed and the journey began. Adeel Mulla (1L) or Mr. IQM Pared, left his job as counsel for Nickelback and Chad Kroeger (Trent Falldien 3L), to join our Dorothy on her quest. Later on in the Reasonable Person Inn, the group met Mr. Hart S. Black (James Raworth 2L) and Ms. Iva Nogutz (Emily Keene 2L) who also wanted to join the quest in search of a heart and some courage. Band Director Matt Bennett (3L) led the band into one of the more difficult numbers with “Canned Heat” and they handled it incredibly well.

Scene three had a number of vignettes which showcased how our team was separated from Dorothy for the Wicked Judge to capture her with her Angry Birds. We saw a shirtless McConaughy (Brendan Sawatsky 2L), a crazy LiLo (Erin Townley 1L) and a spot on Palin (Jessie Larter 3L). As well, an amazing rose ceremony that saw the audience entertained by Jeff O’Brien (2L) for his amazing physique. The first half ended with a rendition of Cee Lo that is still stuck in my head.

The show opened back up with Dorothy (now being played by Kelly Thompson 1L) attempting to escape from prison. A number of players tried to help her out along the way, but the most memorable must have been Tobias Fünke and his big break on the set of “Single Ladies”. Dorothy ultimately fails in her attempt to break out and has to wait on her team to come and help her. The 90s medley was a fun mash up of “Bye Bye Bye” and “Stop” which also featured an incredible on stage costume change led by the singers.

Scene five saw the death of our Wicked Judge at the hands of her own concurring judgment, one of the better death scenes ever written from a legal point of view. Special recognition has to go out to Cam Mitchell (1L), or maybe more appropriately his parents. We didn’t realize until December that we had saddled him with two of the most difficult costumes in the show, Elmo and Bender. Not only did he create these costumes, he nailed them, the cigar for Bender actually stuck to his face via magnet. Amazing.

Finally in the last scene our Wizard (Anil Hanpole 2L) gave our team their heart, brain and courage… but failed to provide a good meaning of the law. Luckily Dean Bryden was able to help as he provided Dorothy with the true meaning of law, which is of course, pie… or maybe it was all a dream.

I want to thank all the directors for making my job so easy. The acting directing team: Andrew Dixon, Brett Grierson, and Emily Keene, put in countless hours rewriting the script, doing videos, and directing our performers. They really went above and beyond to ensure we had a great show. I also want to thank Jay White, the man had the busiest two weeks before the show. He was responsible for editing all the videos, creating and printing the program and the advertising materials, playing the Euphonium and being an actor.

Thanks again to all the sponsors, Karrie’s Kostumes and to all of you that came out to the show. Law Show 2012 was a huge success and thank you all for your continued support.

Julia Ibanescu (1L)

Hometown: Dej, middle of nowhere, Romania. Well, to be precise, middle of Transylvania, Romania.

Undergrad: Media and Communications, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania.

How many children do you have and how old are they?
Joshua, is 5; Jesse is 3; Bianca, our little princess is 9 months.

What is it like having a child and going to law school?
Busy. Crazy. Hard. Amazing. Difficult. Did I mention busy?

How has your sleeping/studying been impacted with a baby in the house?
Well, my last full night sleep was somewhere in April 2006, when I first got pregnant, so law school hasn’t changed that too much.

Is there a song or a video that calms your kid(s) down when they have a tantrum?
Joshua is a dedicated country fan. Jesse has a little more modern taste. He goes with Maroon 5 and “Move like Jagger”. As for Bianca, I think “Itzy bitzy Spider”.

What’s the funniest thing your child has ever said or done?
Joshua’s first days in kindergarten, his teacher told me he hit a fellow student. When I got home, we had “the talk”. “Joshua, what happened in school today?” “Well, mommy, I punched a girl in the face”, he said. I was appalled. “Why would you do such a thing? Hitting is not allowed”… His eyes filled with tears: “But, but, mommy, she kissed me!” I didn’t have the heart to tell him how things will change. But I’ve got her on my radar!

What is your advice to other law school parents who have children or plan on having kids during law school?
Umm…don’t sweat the small stuff! And when you’re feeling overwhelmed by guilt, a trip to Chuck e Cheese always helps!

What is your position on spanking?
I’m all for spanking! But only when my husband misbehaves. I’ve asked him, he’s all for spanking, too.

Is there a special meal that you cook for your children?
It’s called Cocoa bunnies. You take the Nesquik cereal box, pour some in a bowl, add milk and voila! They think I’m the best cook ever and I am not one to disagree!

What is worse: First year property or going through the child labour process?
Definitely property! When you’re in labour, all you have to do is scream and people jump up to help you. It is not only socially accepted, but somewhat required. For some reason, I don’t think that would work with Professor Kaplinsky.

What is the worst thing that you have ever fed your child because you were too busy with school?
Bread… For the whole day. But mind you, my kids consider it some kind of a treat.

How long have you let your kid go with a dirty diaper because you were busy with school?
Define dirty, because there are so many different levels of peeing and pooping.

How do you make up to your child for being a boring law student?
I do some awesome crafts! And I became quite the expert in Candyland!

Russ Shepp (2L)

Hometown: Esterhazy Saskatchewan (Go Riders!)

Undergrad: B.Ed BSc from the Prairie Province Ivy League School (University of Saskatchewan)

How many children do you have and how old are they?
2 Children, Sophie is 2.5 years old and Thomas is 1 month old.

What is it like having a child and going to law school?
It’s great, although it can be a challenge when trying to manage your time. My kids are a ton of fun so they can really give you perspective when you may feel stressed or overwhelmed.

How has your sleeping/studying been impacted with a baby in the house?
Sleep??? I assume everyone averages 4 hours right??

Is there a song or a video that calms your kid(s) down when they have a tantrum?
My kids don’t have tantrums, they are perfectly behaved at all times. But now that I think about it I have seen some law students have tantrums in class…maybe the profs need to find some soothing music.

What’s the funniest thing your child has ever said or done?
When my new son was born over Christmas my little girl asked if she could drink wine now, “I am a big sister now so I can drink wine dad??” We told her earlier that wine was for big people, her interpretation was quite correct in her mind…damn 2 year old law wanna-be’s!

What is your advice to other law school parents who have children or plan on having kids during law school?
Put in an 8 hour day during regular working hours, then you can spend time with them at night. Also make sure your partner is as good as mine, she really picks up the slack when I get busy.

What is your position on spanking?
I don’t think you need to do it, personally I think it is bullying, it’s using physically force to push someone into conforming. If you spend extra time being proactive you don’t have to spank (which I believe is a reactive method of dealing with issues).

Is there a special meal that you cook for your children?
My daughter loves “noodles and sauce” so I like to whip out some pasta and tomato sauce once a week.

What is worse: First year property or going through the child labour process?
Hands down Property, like what the hell is a feeoffee and feeoffer blah blah blah… Although I did get a sore back from having to stand up while waiting…

What is the worst thing that you have ever fed your child because you were too busy with school?
Real fruit gummies….she loves them and they say “real fruit” so they must be good for her.

How long have you let your kid go with a dirty diaper because you were busy with school?
Never happened… the smell overruled my schedule…

How do you make up to your child for being a boring law student?
I think my wife pays the price…not my daughter!

She Said: Mid-terms are worth it
Kelly Thompson (1L)

I cannot say that I enjoyed my first set of law school exams – I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would say that. But I think, in the end, they have turned out to be a beneficial experience which will help me moving forward. The biggest benefit was getting my CANs in gear. Many uppers years and profs told me to work on my CANs throughout the semester – did I listen to any of them? Nope! Did I spend a stupid number of hours in the first two weeks of December trying to get a CAN ready for each of 6 of my exams – yes. Moving forward I like to think that I learned a lesson; I plan to work on my CANS throughout 2nd semester to make finals a little bit easier on myself.

I also struggled last semester with the lack of evaluation on what I had learned so far. Getting some marks back at least gave me a rough idea of how I was doing compared to others in my class. I realized that there were some concepts that I thought I was grasping but in actuality was not; there were other things I did understand and those where I was fairly certain I had no idea what was going on and that turned out to be true. To be given an idea of where I stand was a great source of feedback. It also gave me an idea of where I may need to put in a little bit more work going into final exams.

Oh, final exams – the thought scares me. I thought 25% failsafe exams were ghastly; I am not sure how I am going to deal with finals. Hopefully I will have my notes organized going in!

It is also nice to go in having an idea of what a law school exam is going to look and feel like. The time pressure and length of the scenarios are something unlike I have ever experienced before. Some of the nerves surrounding mid-terms this year stemmed from a fear of the unknown. Hopefully in April that particular fear will subside a little bit.

One of the unexpected non-academic benefits of mid-terms was that I became closer to a number of other 1Ls. Come the crim exam on the afternoon of the Dec 22nd we had all lost our brains, spent way too many hours studying, and had experienced at least one break down – I may have had more than one. A strange bonding experience…but to go through it together definitely brought us closer!

The work in 2nd semester scares me a little bit already; however, to have an idea of what I need to do with my notes and what I am working towards, and to know that I have an amazing support group around me, makes everything seem more manageable. These are all things that came out of mid-terms. Yes they were hard, but I think that they were definitely worth it.

He Said: The hidden pith and substance of mid-term exams
Joshua Allen (1L)

The thing about mid-terms in law school is that the name gives you the wrong impression of what they are all about. Sort of like ‘employment insurance’ or ‘zesty’ as a descriptor on packaged foods.

Exams are nominally about examining students and determining their relative standing. However, if I may be allowed to use some of my hard-won constitutional knowledge, I think mid-terms need to have a pith and substance test performed on them.

Let’s consider the mid-term schedule. You have a week leading up to the first mid-term, and then scant days before every other mid-term. If you were unlucky (read: in my cohort), you also had no days between the last two. The result: not unlike a pressure cooker that culminates in poorly written exams and regrettable coping behaviour.

The professors also do not agree on whether to include all of the material before the break or stop some place earlier. This provides the not inconsequential possibility of worrying throughout December about which class is which. There may be some advantages to letting this decision be class-dependent but I can’t think of any.

Results, despite assurances to the contrary, seem to involve no small degree of chance. Like choosing the winning team in a hockey game or the fast lane at the supermarket, even the most prepared inevitably end up disastrously wrong at some point. Sure, they might get it right most of the time but they really won’t know until they get their results back. This might be me projecting though since my worst grade and my best grade were on the exams I thought I had bombed and aced, respectively.

Undoubtedly the exams offer an opportunity for a professor to provide feedback to students. This is good thing. Unfortunately it seems to happen only once every 4 months instead of more regularly. If feedback were the mid-terms’ main goal, they would be more regular and probably called something else, like assignments or exercises. Perhaps there are budgetary concerns with some preferable alternatives, like regular assignments, but that does not make mid-terms good. Merely as good as you are likely to get.

The conclusion to this pith and substances is that mid-terms seem designed to give you some taste of an exam before you have to take the final exam. They are designed to accomplish this with a reasonable amount of work given to the professors, who I am sure would agree that marking 60 exams over the holidays was not any great treat for them either. They are also intended to provide an opportunity for feedback in a low-risk environment, since they all seem to be next to worthless on a final grade anyway.

Well, that, or it is an attempt to induce camaraderie by forcing everyone to go though the same traumatic experience together. It is hard to argue with results.

Shanlee Von Vegesack (2L)

At the end of exams this past December, we saw a flurry of status updates from second year students saying mainly one thing: “Half way done law school!!!” It appeared that law students were just as stoked as Bon Jovi to be half way there. So it seems appropriate to do a brief recap of what has gone down in our first year and a half of law school. Most of us came here with varied expectations and we waited anxiously for what was to come. We were just a bunch of lost puppy dogs – scared but keen. We were warned repeatedly on orientation day that reputation means everything and nothing else matters. But being the clever law students we are, we questioned this one piece of advice more and more as each event occurred. While most of us have made an effort to maintain a good reputation, we have also made having fun a top priority. In the past year and a half, we have gone to the 109th Street McDonald’s enough to refer to it as “The Lounge”. We have frequented Avenue Pizza so much that they felt the need to renovate with some high-class wood paneling. Carbolic was a highlight last year and it’s nice to know that the same hotel will be happily hosting us again this year. I don’t think the same can be said for the hotel that hosted 800 law students for Law Games in Vancouver this January. Participating in Law Show as an actor this year has been a lot of fun and it’s a nice way to channel the inner creativity that I never knew I had…or perhaps that I still don’t actually have. Ski Trip was one of my all-time favourite weekends of law school so far. Friends, powder, hot tubs, and flip cup are no doubt a winning combination. In the first year and a half of law school, we saw some of Professor Decoste’s prophecies come true with the Thanksgiving turkey break-ups and the back-to-school break-ups. But we’ve also seen some of our friends and colleagues find love in this hopeless place. The best part about law school has been the friendships that have formed. We definitely could not have had such a great time at school without the amazing people who are so much fun to be around and who are also a much needed support system when it comes to exams and library tweak-outs. I think the best part of this halfway reflection is the realization that we still have one and a half more years of school left before we graduate. We should cherish the time that we have left with our friends in school and make the most of all the events that are offered and the flexibility of our schedules that will diminish, if not disappear, when we start articling. One and a half more years to do this right and I’m sure we will all make the best of it.

Jessica Duhn (3L)

Having recently returned from an exchange in Uppsala Sweden, I now consider myself an expert on the Swedish culture. Here are the top 5 things I learned about the Swedes while on exchange:

1. The Swedish language is a tricky one and really does sound like the chef from the Muppets. My idea of not taking the language course and just “picking up the basics” would have been much more difficult had everyone not spoke English. Other than a few words, the only Swedish sentence I came away with was: “Ta mig hem ikväll snygging.” Google translate that bad boy.

2. The Swedes are shy people to begin with, but deep down inside they love to party. To break down that icy exterior, just give them food and schnapps and it’s like feeding a Gremlin after midnight. They transform into these fist pumping, dancing, signing maniacs who continuously profess their love to you throughout the course of an evening.

3. Tights make any outfit acceptable. If your skirt is too short or that “long shirt” is just not quite long enough, or even for riding your bicycle while wearing any of the above, just throw on a pair of tights and everything will be fashionably fine.

4. Biking while intoxicated is much more difficult than one would assume. First off, you have the difficult task of remembering where you parked your bike. Then you need to get it unlocked and untangled without falling on the adjacent bikes. The last, and perhaps most important step, is the bike ride home where you need to remember that you have not been biking since birth and therefore cannot ride without hands while attempting to “party rock” on your bike. The skinned chin and bruised knees was nothing in comparison to my damaged pride.

5. Lastly, some Canadian-isms (as they were termed in Sweden) do not transfer over and in fact can be down right offensive. Although no one adopted it into their vocabulary, “toque” elicited giggling responses from the Swedes as they found it a cute word. On the other hand, the term “double fisting” (which oddly enough does not refer to holding two drinks in your hands at once) was found highly offensive but yet widely adopted into usage.

All in all, Sweden was the best semester of my life thus far. To my fellow third year students: Skål till den sista terminen av lagen!

Gareth Reeves (2L)

2011 marked a very significant year in Canadian politics. It saw a shift back to majority governance, a fall of the default governing party, the Bloc nearly disappear, and the NDP take their first crack at official opposition. However, through it all one man stole the spotlight, Jack Layton.

Thanks mostly to Jack Layton’s leadership, charisma, and moustache the NDP was able to make historic gains during the May 2011 election, claiming 103 seats. The party won new seats across the country, particularly in Quebec, and often at the expense of the traditionally dominant Liberals and the regionally powerful Bloc.
He proved an effective party leader despite the fact that he was recovering from hip surgery, needing the assistance of a cane, and that he was fighting the return of the cancer he battled in 2010. Sadly this cancer claimed his life in late August 2011, leaving Nycole Turmel as the interim leader of the NDP. He also left behind Olivia Chow, his wife of twenty-two years and fellow NDP Member of Parliament.

After his death Layton was given a state funeral upon the suggestion of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He was the second opposition leader to die while in office (Laurier was the first) and the first to be given a state funeral when he otherwise would not have (Laurier as ex-Prime Minister was entitled to one).

His death brought an end to an eight year period as NDP leader and a nearly thirty year career as a politician. Layton also had an at least twenty year career as a Trekkie. A significantly longer career than any other “Redshirt” in Star Fleet.

Layton began his political career with the Toronto City Council. He quickly established himself as a major force in the left-wing. He pursued many causes including opposing Toronto’s Olympic bid, and pushing for green technologies. All the while outfitting his own, notoriously green, home.

He moved to the Federal sphere in 2003 by becoming NDP leader, and was elected to the House of Commons in 2004. Until his death, he led the party to significant political gains and proved an effective advocate for the left-wing.

Of course, as with any politician, he had his share of controversy. He was accused of taking advantage of subsidized housing, and visiting some questionable massage parlours. But throughout his life, from being raised in Hudson, Quebec to pursuing a PhD in political science on the political philosophy of idealism, he seemed always concerned with the betterment of Canada.

It may be appropriate then, to give him the last word, which he tried to get by leaving a letter to be read upon his death. Reflecting his philosophy of idealism, the letter concludes: “My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.”

Garth Paulson (2L)

It’s 10 p.m., do you know where your community is? What about your street? Is it with that skanky avenue down the way you saw it talking to last week. Even that whore of an avenue would be better than that filthy alleyway that lurks behind the corner store. You wouldn’t want your loveable, innocent street falling in with such a rough crowd now would you?

Fortunately—or terrifyingly, depending on your politics—the Conservative majority is here to help with Bill C-10. The bill collects a smattering of previously failed criminal and bundles them together into The Safe Streets and Communities Act. Beyond its value-laden, offensively inoffensive name, C-10 aspires to achieve nine goals in its efforts to make our streets and communities safer, including protecting children from sexual predators, imposing more severe penalties on organized drug offences, ending house arrests for serious crime, and supporting the victims of crime.

In order to fulfill an election promise, the government has fast-tracked the bill through the usual parliamentary process. The bill has most recently been referred to Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs after two readings in the Senate. At this point it’s all but guaranteed that the bill will be passed and we can all breathe a sigh of relief knowing our ne’er-do-well streets will be safe.

While many of the aims of C-10 are noble, it has raised eyebrows since it was introduced in September 2011. Two of C-10’s biggest safety cudgels are harsher sentences for many crimes and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. In the Toronto Star article “10 reasons to oppose Bill C-10”, Trinda Ernst, the president of the Canadian Bar Association, points out that the bill’s tough on crime measures fly in the face of years of research that shows that sending more people to prison more often doesn’t prevent crime, but can actually reinforce criminal behaviours in individuals subject to incarceration.

The bill also snubs its nose at the course of research and societal trends towards marijuana decriminalization by imposing a mandatory minimum six-month sentence on anyone found growing six or more marijuana plants. This can be bumped to nine months if the plants are found on a third party’s property. In their analysis of C-10, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association expresses the belief that these mandatory minimum sentences, along with other portions of the bill, are likely unconstitutional.

A further problem with the bill is the strain it will place on the Canadian justice and penal system, and its lack of measures to address the impacts and costs of, say, having to foot the bill for throwing more people in the clink. That this strain will come from portions of the bill that could eventually be declared unconstitutional makes the whole process of the bill’s rushed passage through Parliament seem particularly wasteful and unfortunate. At this point though all that can really be done is to wait until portions of the bill are inevitably challenged in court.