 |
| Google images |
A contradictory title no
doubt. The lawyer’s job is driven by strife, especially in our local context;
where bitterness escalates to an irreversible level before you call in a
lawyer. Even the modern suggestion of pre-emptive use of Law is worse. It merely displays a lack of trust. And what
is love without trust?
So, we should not ruin
the beautiful word by placing it side to side with, well…the Law.
Love
is for people who live freely. The lawyer’s starched collars permit no such
easement. Love is for honest folks who are not ashamed of making mistakes. It
is a game of emotions. The Law is infallible and impassive. Love attracts
gifts. The Law attracts penalties. Love is a gesture that goes beyond mere
words. In the words of Ingrid Bergman: A
kiss is a lovely trick designed by nature to stop speech when words become
superfluous.
But
‘beyond mere words’ best describes a lawyer’s death.
The
anti-lawyer sentiment when Love is in the air is not helped by the practice of
Divorce Lawyers. You can sense their sardonic pleasure when they establish the
unsavoury fact that sometimes, Love is in
the err…!
The
Lawyer scoffs at the phrase ‘unconditional love’ as tautology. He believes that
Love should either exist in an absolute state; or humbly admit its openness to
conditions. He does not believe in falling
in love or any such spontaneous magic. He recommends a firm foot-hold in
matters of the heart, governed by mutually agreed pre-conditions.
The lawyer’s concept of
Love is a bit like this:
“The parties hereby agree that for the
subsistence of this relationship (which phrase shall wherever the context
admits, include such casual liaisons as flings, affairs, and friendship with
benefits as well as the more formal processes of dating, courtship and marriage).
The parties also agree
that no party shall perform acts or omissions which are likely to negatively
impact on the other party’s state of health, mind, emotions, or finances.
“Omission”
as used here is any unjustified forgetfulness on the part of the male
constituent in this relationship of any occasion, event or circumstance which
in the opinion of the female constituent is important or highly cherished.
These events include but are not limited to: anniversaries (which shall in
itself include, birthdays, first dates, first kiss, first hug, first argument,
first fight, first picnic, parents’ birthdates [“parents’ herein used shall be
mandatory for those of the female constituent, and discretionary for those of the
male], sister’s boyfriend’s
thanksgiving, etc); shoe size (UK and American); best chocolate flavours; best
fragrance, best shopping mall, best jewelry, best TV channel; best visitors;
best topics of discussion, etc.
The Agreement will go
further to provide that:
“Unreasonable
demands’ shall include any such urges, desires, or wants expressed orally or in
writing by the female constituent to the male constituent requiring the
performance of such activities as are either impossible or where possible would
inflict huge personal discomforts and pain, or have such negative effect on the
financial solvency of the male constituent as to endanger his life. These shall
include but not limited to: questing for a week-long trip to Dubai and/or other exotic
Islands, A pronounced preference for any variety of human hair beyond the
natural braids and weave; An insistent notice of the emergence of the
Blackberry Porsche; cultivating an exclusive taste for Chinese and other
Oriental cuisines; A habitual preference for the VIP sections of bars, lounges,
clubs and during live-shows; an expressed dislike for the genteel gifts or
flowers, poetry and chocolates during Valentine, etc.’
The
bad thing about this scenario is that there would be no Termination Clause.
Love is permanent. But
every contract permits an exit route. Oh, Love is not a contract…it is a
covenant; a restrictive covenant. So, these conditions may or may not be met,
and the parties live in stoic tolerance of the good, the bad and the downright
unacceptable. Where then lies the “Happily Ever After” elixir?
Only
fools fall in love then; never the learned and knowledgeable…at least, not in
that mushy sense.
The
lawyer views love from a social perspective; the balance of society, the love
of the Law.
So,
when the date rape occurs on Valentine’s, the loveless Lawyer is entreated from
his lonely chambers. He is Mr. Damage Control who is never invited when the going
is good.
The big irony then is
that the Lawyer shows the best type of love. That, which brooks no excuses: you
pay for your sins. In popular legal parlance; the saying “thou shall love your neighbor” is interpreted as ‘thou shall not injure your neighbor…”
So, when next you see a
Lawyer wandering distractedly across the red splashed streets on St
Valentine’s, do not point and deride him. He is expressing the same emotion,
albeit a bit unimaginatively. Of course, we agree that he is also a money
grabber, but then that ‘robber’ might just be your best protection. Grab his card and buy him a drink. Just be
sure to rise when he starts a glazed-eye discourse on the ‘subtle sexism
discernible from Shakespeare’s sonnets’
END.
PS: In the light of our
collective national scourge of religious/tribal violence and militant
destruction, the Nation desperately needs LOVE. Show some today…even to a
lawyer!
Happy Val’s People!
also published on THISDAY Newspapers, Tuesday, February 14, 2012.
