On May 20, the Associated
Press reported that biologists had
taken “a bold step…in the enduring quest to create artificial life.”
They had synthesized DNA
capable of replicating itself.
Though some have touted this as
creating artificial life from
scratch, it’s one step behind that:
the scientists needed a natural living cell as a receptor for the synthetic DNA.
Still, the inevitable comparisons to Frankenstein’s monster
are in the air, characterizing our
anxiety about the inherent dangers. Project leader J. Craig Venter
admits that something nasty
could replicate itself in this way,
and that it could be used to evil
ends. Biological terrorism aside,
the very idea of mortals playing
god is always anxious-making,
and inevitably brings calls for
legal regulation. Viscerally, we
feel we are toying with the apocalyptic. There is the sense that,
even when such science does not
violate positive law, it is a heresy
against natural and sacred law.
Twelve years ago, the Dutch
writer Harry Mulisch anticipated
all this, in his novel The Procedure. His protagonist wins a Nobel
prize for synthesizing monocellu-
JEFFREY
MILLER
lar life. The novel is an historical
meditation on the feat, reaching
back to the prototypical Frankenstein’s monster, the golem of Jewish mysticism.
From its beginnings in the
Kabbala nearly 2000 years ago to
this day, in Mulisch, Michael
Chabon’s The Amazing Adven-
tures of Kavalier and Clay, and
Cynthia Ozick’s The Puttermesser
Papers, the golem has always
embodied legal questions that go
to the heart of western culture.
Among religious mystics, the
ability to make a golem signified
that, through his piety, the creator
had come as close to the supreme
Law-giver as possible, so close
that he could mimic if not alto-
gether imitate the most formid-
able powers of the godhead. For
this reason, golem-making is
extremely dangerous and can be
construed as a violation of the
primary proscriptions against
polytheism, idolatry, and messi-
anism. It is playing at God, mak-
ing our own Adams, the spiritual
equivalent of sedition. Other legal
problems for religious mystics
have included: If you kill a golem,
is it a homicide? When he dies, is
he unclean like dead humans,
such that, by law, priests cannot
be near him?
ALOYSIUS PATRIMONIO / DREAMSTIME.COM
Bilingualism SCC debate is about politics, not practicality
The odds of being struck by
lightning during your lifetime in
Canada are about 1 in 3,000.
With approximately 100,000
lawyers in the country and only 9
positions on the Supreme Court
of Canada, the odds of any particular lawyer making it to that
court are probably lower than
the odds of a lightning hit.
Lawyers generally don’t spend
much time worrying about lightning. Likewise, few will be willing to devote large, ongoing
blocks of time to preparing
themselves for an SCC appointment either, since the chances of
it ever happening are so remote.
It’s simply not a rational thing to
do when there are so many competing demands on your time.
Bill C-232, currently before
the Senate, would require all
new judges appointed to the
SCC to understand French and
English “without the assistance
of an interpreter.” This requirement would effectively bar a
huge percentage—probably the
vast majority—of Canadian
lawyers who are not fully bilingual from ever being eligible for
OPINION
KAREN
SELICK
“I have not seen anyone
point out even a single
instance in the court’s
135-year history where
a case appears to
have been wrongly
decided as a result
of translation errors.
the top court. The loss of many
candidates who might other-
wise be excellent choices should
trouble us all.
Proponents of the bill, includ-
ing Liberal leader Michael
Ignatieff, have said dismissively
that Anglophone lawyers who
feel miffed by their sudden dis-
qualification should “study a lit-
tle French.” But most Canadians
already do study “a little” French.
I studied it for 8 years at school
and university, several decades
ago. I can get around France
without going hungry, but I
couldn’t follow complex legal
arguments in rapid-fire French,
let alone pose questions to coun-
sel. This kind of linguistic com-
petence can usually only be
acquired by immersing yourself
for at least a year or two in cir-
cumstances where you have to
speak the language routinely,
every day, including the special-
ized vocabulary pertinent to law.
