Introduction

0:07

thanks

0:08

very much for joining me uh today uh

0:11

avnish

0:11

nanda is a principal of

0:14

nanda law which is a boutique law firm

0:17

in edmonton

0:19

and um we’re here to talk about the

0:21

hammurabi code but maybe

0:22

i miss you could start with just talking

0:24

a bit about how do you describe your law

0:26

practice and who do you fight for

0:29

justice for

0:30

uh like um others seem to

0:34

describe my practice as like a bit of a

0:36

unicorn law firm or unicorn

0:38

practice where i do a lot of work

0:41

that is um primarily on behalf of

0:45

marginalized vulnerable groups in

0:47

alberta and british columbia

0:49

and the focus is on more often not suing

0:53

kind of the government or large

0:56

institutional interests that may be

0:57

privately held

1:00

who are engaged in conflict with folks

1:02

without means

1:04

i also do a lot of just general

1:07

litigation but

1:08

most of my practice is losses against

1:10

the police losses against

1:12

governments uh prisons um and just

1:16

um yeah things like that where there’s a

1:19

big power imbalance and there are

1:21

challenging interesting legal questions

1:23

that have to be addressed

1:24

right and you started from a human

What drew you into law

1:26

rights interest is that right and that

1:28

was what kind of drew you into law in

1:30

the first place or

1:31

yeah a lot of uh i came from like a an

1:34

activism background

1:36

primarily around uh the health

1:39

and uh kind of socio-cultural impacts of

1:42

large-scale

1:43

oil and gas development in northern

1:44

alberta on communities downstream from

1:46

that

1:46

so in the fort chipotle one area and uh

1:50

those questions there’s like

1:52

unsatisfying answers to serious social

1:55

questions um kind of prompted me or

1:58

encouraged me to go to law school to

1:59

figure out

2:00

if there’s no political like political

2:02

arena or formal political solution to

2:04

this when

2:05

communities are being impacted in this

2:06

way maybe there’s legal solutions

2:09

yeah yeah so we’re taking a

The Hammurabi Code

2:12

um question from michael sarkin’s essay

2:15

250 things an architect should know

2:17

and the question is the relevant parts

2:19

of the hammurabi

2:20

code of law and uh this is a code of law

2:24

that was written

2:25

1700 bc so 30 almost four centuries ago

2:29

and it was carved onto a single stone

2:32

monument and rediscovered i think in

2:35

1901

2:36

it was uh discovered it was kind of

2:37

hidden for a while

2:39

there are like 282 laws kind of written

2:43

in

2:43

um sumerian uniform

2:46

um code or writing form which is one of

2:49

the earliest

2:50

forms of writing um what do you make of

2:52

this

2:53

of this code i think is there is there

2:56

anything that

2:57

stands out to you from this code if we

2:58

were to look at it from today’s

3:00

perspective

3:02

yeah like just someone who’s so immersed

3:05

in law

3:05

like i’ve come to realize that laws are

3:08

reflections of societies and their

3:09

values

3:10

um so when i look at this i i get

3:15

a kind of a clear sense of what this

3:17

society this community valued in terms

3:19

of

3:20

um like distinctions in society between

3:24

uh like the you know the citizens who

3:27

were always free

3:29

um slave or freed men or free slaves

3:32

a slaves and and also women or

3:36

was it sisters or daughters or kind of

3:39

wives of god i think that’s the term

3:42

um so you get a sense of how the society

3:44

was structured you get a sense that this

3:47

was

3:47

probably a merchant-based society

3:50

because there’s so much emphasis on

3:51

trade

3:52

on construction on ship

3:55

building on on trip

3:59

on trading goods um more

4:02

there’s more of emphasis on that um i

4:04

find

4:06

than kind of farming or agricultural

4:08

there is a lot of

4:09

reference to agricultural work so this

4:12

probably was a very sophisticated

4:13

commercial

4:14

society there’s some like like like

4:17

death is often a consequence for

4:20

anything

4:21

any kind of breach of this course so

4:23

it’s quite harsh yeah

4:24

very harsh but i also noticed that

4:28

um there’s some community or communal

4:30

aspects where it is it says where

4:32

for instance um if someone is is robbed

4:35

or so there’s some theft of property and

4:37

they can’t find who is responsible then

4:40

the expectation is the community’s going

4:42

to get together and make that individual

4:43

whole who’s

4:44

uh who’s had stuff kind of taken from

4:47

them

4:48

and you had mentioned about if someone

4:51

is too

4:51

extremely lazy to um kind of uh

4:55

take care of a particular agricultural

4:57

land that it falls on the community to

4:59

kind of step in and get compensated

5:01

to make use of the land for agricultural

5:03

purposes

5:04

so that stuff is kind of interesting

5:06

that’s not in our kind of legal system

5:08

here but i think it is kind of

5:11

kind of valuable or interesting shows a

5:14

communal approach to things

5:15

yeah that is interesting and then there

Wage Standards

5:17

are some codes like

5:18

um if a builder completes a house

5:22

there’s a particular value per

5:24

service area that he gets paid so

5:26

there’s kind of a standardization if we

5:28

were to think about

5:29

um a wage standard wage for instance or

5:34

a standard income it’s i’m wondering do

5:36

you feel like it goes in that direction

5:38

in some ways or

5:39

yeah it absolutely does so i do a lot of

5:42

construction a lot too like builders

5:43

liens things of that nature

5:45

um so when i look at that i note um

5:49

that they prescribe specific

5:51

compensation which is not the case here

5:53

today um we emphasize more

5:56

contractual law what the parties

5:58

directly agreed to rather than

6:00

prescribing legislation

6:02

what specifically has to be paid for for

6:05

construction work um there is also this

6:08

emphasis

6:09

i think it’s important that in our kind

6:11

of construction

6:12

or um building law here in alberta or in

6:16

canada

6:17

in large north north america that

6:19

there’s like protections for both

6:20

the builder who kind of undertakes the

6:22

work ensuring that they’re paid

6:24

adequately that

6:25

there’s um a recognition that they

6:28

should get

6:29

value from what they provide um but also

6:31

for

6:32

the person getting something built so it

6:34

goes both ways because

6:36

because maybe that’s just a reflection

6:37

of you know how these relationships

6:39

um proceed but um

6:43

it’s not striking to you but it’s just

6:45

it’s cool to see how you know the laws i

6:47

deal with day-to-day here

6:49

protecting both parties in a transaction

6:51

like this

6:52

i look at it here and there’s similar

6:53

recognition that both parties have to

6:55

protect it in these sorts of

6:57

relationships

6:59

yeah and but of course would would it be

7:01

in the same if a builder puts to death

7:03

someone from construction the

7:05

the outcome might be a little bit

7:06

different today than it might have been

7:08

then

7:09

yeah exactly very very different very

7:12

very different

7:13

um but there’s this like um

7:16

i guess recognition of immense

7:18

responsibility

7:20

um and consequence um if

7:23

a building isn’t done properly i just uh

7:26

you know right now our

7:27

codes on this like from the from the

7:29

kind of the building code to

7:31

like um various lean legislation it’s

7:34

like very thick

7:36

like it’s like you know very thick in

7:37

alberta right now

7:39

in in this code it’s only about eight

7:42

eight or ten

7:43

yeah yeah it’s interesting yeah yeah

7:46

that is interesting

Do No Harm

7:47

so i mean one couple of things that

7:49

stood out for me and and being

7:51

um not practiced not studied in law and

7:54

you know it’s it’s very lay person

7:57

questions but i think

7:58

the idea of you know there’s um first do

8:01

no harm that kind of seems to come out

8:03

so if some of the laws are set up

8:07

to protect um the idea is really go in

8:10

with your practice if you know thinking

8:12

as an architect or as a designer going

8:13

in with your practice thinking about

8:15

first you know harm

8:16

that seems to come out as one of the

8:17

things i don’t know if that’s something

8:18

that strikes

8:19

you um and then the other is um

8:23

you know the eye for the eye that has

8:25

come out as kind of a

8:27

strong tenet maybe of law so i don’t

8:30

know if you can comment on either of

8:31

those

8:32

um things that come out or if maybe

8:34

there’s something else

8:36

no no for sure i think that’s an

8:38

interesting uh way to phrase

8:40

it uh like a do no harm perspective that

8:43

when you’re engaging in your trade or

8:45

your work

8:46

um come from it from a point of view

8:49

where

8:50

you know yeah you don’t do no harm but

8:54

when i look at this you know it looks at

8:57

me

8:57

it appears to be this kind of

9:02

understanding at some point that

9:05

there will be someone who doesn’t do

9:07

that um that

9:08

someone will build a house in a way that

9:11

will cause injury

9:12

cause death and they are

9:16

prescribing very strict consequences for

9:19

that because they want to

9:22

incentivize builder

9:25

not to kind of perform shoddy work

9:28

and to me that may be a reflection of

9:31

what is

9:32

the nature of human beings that kind of

9:35

in is infused into this this code where

9:39

there appears to be a recognition that

9:41

you know even if someone

9:43

who is skillful and competent

9:46

may be lazy may engage in their trade in

9:49

a way that could cause harm to others

9:51

and

9:52

in order to prevent that from happening

9:55

they need to create an added incentive

9:57

to to do things

9:59

correctly construct buildings correctly

10:01

and that is often

10:03

ensuring that that person can continue

10:04

to live so

10:06

um i think you know there is a

10:09

reflection of

10:11

or at least an insight into um human

10:14

nature

10:14

at least according to this uh society or

10:17

this culture

10:18

this community yeah that’s interesting

Relevance

10:22

and then i think one of the things that

10:23

i’m curious about maybe is the last

10:25

question is

10:26

um sarkin mentions the relevant sections

10:29

of the code of hammurabi and

10:31

and i guess i’m going to just throw out

10:33

the question of how do we define

10:35

relevance and i think

10:36

you know you’ve been advocating for a

10:39

province where we all belong you’ve been

10:40

dealing with a lot of

10:42

um justice in areas of social

10:46

equity um so i guess i’m i’m going to

10:48

ask can we separate

10:50

social and ethical codes from building

10:52

codes or

10:54

must must everything be weighed together

10:56

like where do we where do we put

10:58

the building in relation to the rest of

11:01

the social and equitable codes

11:03

i think it all has to be mixed in

11:05

together particularly when you come to

11:07

like laws and regulations and codes

11:09

because again like

11:10

as i said at the outset this is all a

11:13

reflection

11:14

of certain values uh certain um kind of

11:17

norms understandings of human nature

11:19

what a society ought to

11:21

aspire to be uh and values and when i

11:25

look at

11:26

in that sense you know you cannot just

11:29

take out

11:30

building codes away from what we as a

11:32

society value in terms of

11:34

particularly in terms of um you know

11:36

social stratification

11:38

um equity issues inclusivity issues and

11:42

i think if people think that they can

11:43

approach um

11:45

you know in this case architects or

11:48

builders

11:49

uh their trade in a way that’s devoid or

11:51

not considered

11:52

isn’t considered these broader issues

11:54

and what kind of legal norms and subtle

11:56

norms

11:57

are infusing the laws that they’re

11:59

following

12:00

i think um you know

12:03

it does it does a disservice to maybe

12:05

what that principle would do no harm

12:07

or just what kind of society what kind

12:09

of community you want to build

12:12

yeah and i mean it’s interesting i i

Ethical Code

12:14

don’t think

12:15

this is in any way suggesting that

12:17

architects must understand legal code

12:19

but i think it’s more the principles

12:20

behind

12:22

the understandings that we’re we’re all

12:24

supposed to be aware of to some extent

12:25

this is how

12:26

society exists in an equitable way in

12:29

equitable fashion

12:31

yeah and i think that there are going to

12:32

be some architects at least i know

12:34

like hopefully myself as some a lawyer

12:36

where you know i’m subject to a certain

12:38

code as well i’m subject

12:39

to following a certain types of law when

12:42

i’m helping

12:43

clients of mine but just the nature of

12:45

who i help and how i help people

12:47

and just kind of want to commute what

12:49

kind of community i want i will like you

12:51

know obviously comply with what the law

12:53

is but

12:54

approach it in a manner where i think

12:56

it’s more equitable so like

12:57

on some level this is a bare minimum

13:01

but in order to kind of ensure that your

13:03

conception of the good in society or

13:05

what society ought to aspire for

13:07

is kind of imbued in your work you go

13:08

beyond um so you kind of more critical

13:12

and yeah unaware of what how your

13:15

actions are

13:16

either kind of contributing to your

13:18

notion of what a just and fair society

13:20

is

13:20

relative to what isn’t yeah so there’s

13:22

almost a code of ethics that rises above

13:25

the legal

13:25

legal code is the base and then the

13:27

ethical code kind of sits above that

13:29

a little bit absolutely for me at least

13:32

yeah

13:32

that’s great avnish nanda thank you so

13:43

much

No results found