This morning, I opened the Toronto Star and found myself staring at one of the most offensive, regressive, and frankly misogynistic articles published by a mainstream Canadian outlet in recent memory. Heather Mallick’s opinion piece questioning why women defend men accused of sexual offences is not just misguided, it’s dangerous. It is a full-on assault on women in the legal profession, and it deserves to be called out for exactly what it is: sexist drivel cloaked in faux moral outrage.
Let’s start with the premise. Mallick suggests that women appear at the side of men accused of sexual offences because they are somehow decorative—a “flattering adjacency,” as she calls it. Her words are not subtle. Women, in her view, are hired because they wear skirts, bat their eyes, and provide something nice to look at for juries. These aren’t just outdated stereotypes. This is misogyny, laid bare on the pages of a national newspaper.
She writes as if our presence in court is accidental. As if we didn’t fight to be there. As if we haven’t worked harder, proved more, and endured more scrutiny than our male counterparts just to get into the courtroom and stay there. The top criminal defence lawyers in this country include brilliant, principled, formidable women. Megan Savard and Marie Henein are just two—the list is long. These women have not “slipped in” to high-stakes work because of their looks. They are there because they are exceptional at what they do. The suggestion that they are accessories for accused men is beyond offensive. It is reductive, demeaning, and shameful.
Worse still is Mallick’s assertion that women lawyers are somehow morally compromised for defending clients accused of sexual assault. That our gender should limit the scope of our work. That we are betraying women by doing our jobs. This is not only insulting, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the criminal justice system.
We are not here to judge guilt or innocence. We are not hired to make moral pronouncements. We are hired to defend the rights of people who have been accused of crimes… rights that exist for a reason. The right to a fair trial. The right to be presumed innocent. The right to hold the state to its burden of proof. These rights are not conditional on the nature of the offence or the gender of the lawyer. They are the foundation of any democracy worth defending.
And yet, women who do this work are constantly interrogated. Not only for the work we do, but for daring to do it well. Mallick accuses us of cruelty for cross-examining complainants. She mischaracterizes our legal obligations as moral failures. She implies that men can do this work without question, but women should stay away unless they want to serve the patriarchy. This double standard is rooted in deep internalized misogyny, and it reinforces the very gendered assumptions that keep women from advancing in the profession.
The truth is this: many of us are better at this work precisely because of our gender and lived experiences. We know what it’s like to fight to be heard. To be underestimated. To be judged unfairly. That perspective informs our advocacy. It sharpens it. And yet, Mallick chooses to erase us with a condescending wave of the hand and a tired metaphor about skirts.
Her comments about diversity hiring reveal even more rot in the foundation of her argument. She suggests that racialized and female lawyers should “draw lines” about what cases they take Should we leave the hard ones to white men so that we do not betray our origins? This logic is not only absurd, it’s offensive. It infantilizes diverse lawyers, strips us of agency, and reinforces a white, male standard of professional legitimacy.
What’s most insulting is that Mallick does all of this while purporting to stand for women. She claims to care about misogyny and gender equality, all while painting women in the profession as dupes, sellouts, or decorative fluff. Her article doesn’t empower women. It undermines them. It doesn’t advance the cause of justice. It attacks those of us doing the hardest work to preserve it.
Women in criminal defence are not friendly accessories in heels. We are counsel. We are defenders of the Charter. We are the people standing in the gap between the individual and the overwhelming power of the state. We do not need your permission to do our jobs. And we certainly don’t need your moral validation.
To the Toronto Star: shame on you for publishing this. To Heather Mallick: shame on you for writing it.
We will keep doing the work. We will keep defending our clients. And when your rights are on the line, which they one day may well be, you’ll be lucky if one of us is standing by your side.
