07/06/2016 04:02 EDT | Updated 07/06/2016 04:59 EDT

Why Your Anti-Hillary Clinton Argument Is Invalid

Jessica Kourkounis via Getty Images
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ - JULY 6: Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally on the boardwalk on July 6, 2016 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Clinton addressed presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's business record. (Photo by Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images)

All eyes have been on what is happening politically in the United States these days, and even here in Canada the division between the supporters of each camp is palpable.

Make no mistake; what is happening in the U.S. right now will affect us all. I understand that people feel like they need to pick the lesser of the evils in deciding who to vote for; we have all faced a vote like that a time or two in our voting lives.

While I am not staunchly pro-Hillary, I have a serious problem with one of the current anti-Hillary arguments that are making the rounds.

"She willingly defended a rapist and abused legal loopholes to get him a lighter sentence."

She was a lawyer; it was her job to defend people who face charges. It is every lawyer's job to know, and to use, any and all loopholes in the law to best defend their clients. Taking a case and defending it does not equal agreement with a client or condoning what that client did or did not do; it is her job, as a defense attorney, to defend her clients and their rights to the best of her ability, in spite of any morals or feelings she may have about it.

Regardless of whether not she was appointed to the case or whether she took it on willingly (a completely irrelevant distinction, might I add), she is bound by her oath to the Bar to defend any client she takes on to the absolute best of her ability.

Whether she is your choice to lead the party or be elected as president does not matter here.

This argument was never used to discuss the male lawyer who defended Brock Turner. The judge who imposed the disgustingly light sentence is all over the news (and rightly so), but there is no vilification of the lawyer who defended him; in fact, I had to search for his name, where his client's name and that of Judge Aaron Persky come readily to mind.

There was no distinction made about Brock Turner's lawyer taking on the case willingly or whether he was appointed to it; there are no commentaries on how he is a terrible person for using legal loopholes to defend his client, and there are certainly no character aspersions thrown on him for taking the case.

When dealing in facts, what remains at the base of this argument is this: a woman is being vilified for doing the same thing a male did, and does frequently without comment.

Whether she is your choice to lead the party or be elected as president does not matter here.

That she should be disparaged for doing her job well is unconscionable; that it is a widely accepted argument against her is even worse.

This is the world we live in; this is the conversation that continues despite the widespread movement for gender equality, and despite how far women have come in that fight.

A woman is running for president of the United States of America, and the fear that invokes is at once heartbreakingly sad and maddeningly astounding.

Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook


Hillary Clinton