First Round of Guile Debate: Lawyers are Overpaid Scribes


The Guile debate tryouts happened on the 15th of November. It was a Thursday. There must have been about a dozen people trying out. Good for them. They all debated about whether lawyers are just overpaid scribes. Obviously they are.

What did we learn from the debaters? Well there were 6 debaters pro and 6 con. But the 4 who made the finals were all debaters pro. Maybe this tells us more about the judges than the resolution.

First debater con: Anthony Toljanich, (pronounced tall-an-itch, you’re welcome Tony). Best dick joke of the night, I give it a 15.

First debater pro: Zoe Si. You had to listen very carefully to Zoe, which I didn’t, but she said something about teabags. I don’t know what that means but people seemed to laugh. Orange Pekoe is my least favourite tea.

Second debater pro: Glenn Grande. Glenn told a story in rhyming slang involving his inability to bang.

Second debater con: Rares Crisan. What kind of a name is Rares? He must be a first year. The best and worst thing about his debate was that he rambled.

Third debater pro: yours truly. Probably the only presentation that had any basis in fact. Everyone knows that the only thing the law has going for it is that it’s a big secret.

Fourth debater pro: Chris Thompson. I had to take a leak during most of this. When I got back there was a Dmitry joke. Good for Dmitry.

Third debater con: Guy Riseborough. This guy made a good point, how can you be overpaid when your expenses exceed your pay? Answer: a tenth of an hour at a time.

Fifth debater pro: Patrick Walker. Based on his presentation, Patrick should probably be in prison. Good thing he’s in law school.

Fourth debater con: Martina Zanetti. Sassy, funny, stylish. A few more rugby jokes and she might have had a chance.

Fifth debater con: Wes Berger. Easily he was the most sincere debater. He gave an impassioned defence of the status quo.

Sixth debater pro: Will Shaw. Challenged the entire room to trial by combat. Was almost certainly pummeled after the show.

Sixth debater con: Diarmuid Wickham. Confused 1L thought he was at an LSLAP trial.

The finals will be at the end of January. The finalists are Will Shaw, Glenn Grande, Zoe Si, and last, least, and largely, Chris Thompson. Congratulations to them all. I hope they all have just the best time.

2012 Law Revue Review 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Larry Finkelstein – LAW III

The 2012 UBC Law Revue slimed and oozed its way across the Norm Theatre stage like a damn snail on March 19th and 20th. This obscene and offensive “variety show,” which is put on each year by the UBC law students least likely to find employment, was in especially bad taste this year. I feel that public shaming is the only appropriate response to such an insulting show.

The highlights of the show included an unimaginative opening “meta” scene. This skit consisted of the Revue “brain trust” shouting abhorrent “ideas” at each other that were presumably too colourful to make it into the show proper. It also included two of the students arguing over who had the better idea for a sexual assault sketch.

Also on the menu was the usual litany of misogyny, racism, and contempt for respected professors and judges. One of the skits mocked the venerable Lord Denning, who was singled out in a ridiculous Eminem rap sequence. Another featured not one, but two pairs of exposed male buttocks. Gratuitous and unnecessary violence was also heavily featured. In one scene the actors were pelted with cricket balls, and the infamous zombie sketch featured two unspeakable and fatal beatings.

Not to be outdone, the always over-the-line Daniel Wood was in fine form himself. Whether he was brutally belittling a vulnerable female student’s resume or fantasizing about Professor Christie Ford as a Realdoll, Wood showed that he has learned nothing about sensitivity and equity in his three years at law school. In one sketch, which Wood surely wrote himself, it was insinuated that Associate Dean David Duff drugs his colleagues without their knowledge, and that Professor Benjamin Goold is a cannibal. Even our beloved Legal Eye newspaper was referred to as more fit for use as a bib than as news.

The one genuinely good-spirited and pleasant sketch was about the delightful knitting club and their wholesome influence on the law school. Although even that sketch ended on a childish note with a juvenile penis joke.

Since the show, many students have confided in me, saying that they were sincerely offended and did not know where else to turn since both the present and future Law Student’s Society Ombudspersons were involved in the demoralizing production. The overwhelming consensus seems to be that 2012 has taken the Law Revue to a dark place. But apparently not dark enough, as the biggest complaint about this year’s Law Revue is that it was less offensive than last year’s show. Students have asked: Where were the homophobic and racist slurs? Where was the singling out of specific students and Eastern European chain-smokers? Where was the frontal nudity?

The blame for this disaster must be laid squarely at the feet of show runners James Boxall and Molly Shamess. The message to next year’s Law Revue producers is clear: push the envelope (if you know what I mean).