We need to remember that in the recent petition hearings Mr Mason was the CIP advocate defending CIP candidates against charges of electoral misdeeds, and that he is also a director of CITC. So one could reasonably question in which capacity he now writes, or indeed, whether there is even a distinction.
That said, Mr Mason surmises that other lawyers are not speaking out because their views disagree with mine. Well they have had four weeks now to express that and so far Mr Mason's, albeit coloured by conflicting credentials, is the lone voice.
I assume, however, that such a protracted silence on a challenge that goes to the core of our political values means that those others either align with his, despite the defensive aura about them or, conceivably, are being developed and based on more reasoned grounds.
If the latter, it would be not only helpful, but revealing, if there is in fact another view from the legal fraternity, to hear of it soon, because while I intend to answer Mr Mason, it would just be more convenient to respond to any others at the same time - bearing in mind always that, hopefully, the common goal and motive here should be, and are, the proper, lawful and constitutional functioning of our polity.
If there are no others, however, are we then to conclude that Mr Mason's views represent not only the silent ones but also those of the Law Society, which I mentioned in my last letter, has this legislated duty to protect the public interest in legal matters but seldom, if ever, does?
John M Scott