As an American conservative (not a Republican), I watch the apparent double standard in many judicial decisions and I am losing my respect for (but not my fear of) the justice system.
Without the rule of law (a societal compact written for all to see and (mostly) agreed to by society), we will lose our foundations.
And I blame politicized judges for partisan decisions, a lazy and emotional legislature for bad laws, and a substitution of laws for "what is right" (civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, etc).
Beautiful primer on trusts - a concept many Americans (at least the USA-type) have only heard of in mostly positive framing (unless it’s a complaint about trust-fund children). Yet, they don’t actually understand the much larger concept. In Knowlegde and Dscisions, Thomas Sowell gives the larger concept I’m alluding to: that of “mission driven” (I think that’s the term he uses) lots of ink from - and several directions - but I’m not going to assume for a minute that many people care to browse that lengthy tome, regardless of how brilliant it is. Looking forward to this one!
I'll be very interested, should you ask the question, if they are able to allow that something other than "patriarchy" may be at play in the issues with which they concern themselves.
Aug 20, 2023·edited Aug 21, 2023Liked by Helen Dale
There is an elephant in the room of journalistic discourse on issues like public trust in the judiciary. The elephant is the leftist 'social justice' sheep-dip that academic institutions throughout the Western world have degenerated into. For several decades now - whilst media political discourse has obsessed about the electoral party political contest between Left and Right - every ambitious young aspirant to the great professions has passed through this sheep-dip (and only a minority have the contrarian independence to be entirely unaffected). The legal profession is no exception as Heather Mac Donald has worked tirelessly to expose. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
When is root and branch reform of law schools going to be recognised as the urgent issue that it truly is?
Who’s interests does the rule against perpetuating and passing on wealth serve?
“rule against perpetuities” was the beginning of the financial crisis; it’s the first thing mentioned in “The Big Short” - the Trusts must seek returns or fail, so they seek Alpha (gain) in ever more contorted places...
leading us so many places including 2008 and now...
Whom is served by this Perpetual and Escalating madness?
.... and to the Point>; this rule simply institutionalizes Chancery upon us all... and we have unknowingly become the slaves of the legal clerisy.
There never was Rule of Law there was always Rule of Men.
A polite fiction that makes the Immaculate Conception appear modest and practical - The Church you know claims only One, no more never mind Perpetual Immaculate Conceptions that persist in Perpetuity- ahem...
The Laws of MEN were much more evenly enforced in the past when as a group the Ruling Class knew it was in their interest to obey their own rules. They don’t now... and so why do we?
Rule of Law?
You don’t even rule yourselves...
My break with the law was ROE, it doesn’t mean Caviar, it meant Rules Of Engagement... which you know are “laws” until they aren’t, and the are or aren’t depends the appearances, or mood, or who’s on duty... and that’s why they changed constantly.... for decades...
When the Sword figures it out (we have) the Pen ain’t 💩.
This is 🇺🇸 , be happy you’re not here... we already know
Some feminists who worry about transideology increasingly also criticize drag and/or playing with gender. What is their view on this? How would they define the borders of being critical of transideology versus a new form of male-female gender purity and being critical of transideology becoming an oppression by itself? Is there a danger that being critical of transideology can overshoot? What would their advice be to the transcritical people who are critical of drag("womanface")/playing with gender in general?
If they are looking for an example, I think of the Sean Altmann discussion. I'm worried that this new feminist longing for purity can overshoot which might hurt their cause and become a new oppression on itself which I think might hurt freedom of speech/expression/creativity and hurt gay people as well (although not as much as transideology).
The initial judge at the employment tribunal ruled that Maya's beliefs were 'not "worthy of respect in a democratic society".' -- and this was held to have legal consequences for her.
This was overturned on appeal, but given the zeitgeist how long do you think the attitude of the appeal tribunal will stick? And how far will it extend respecting other beliefs? If legislation against misinformation or hate speech is passed, will that also colour these judgements-calls made under employment law?
Non-US questioner, but relevant I think for both Joyce and Forstater, which is that much of British public dialogue is quite secular, how do they think they should attempt to deal with societies with a more religious public discourse & may be more gender “conservative?
Not a lawyer (and hence unschooled in the nuances of legal trusts) but it's hard not to notice that various activists groups, after achieving victory, never/rarely actually declare victory and go home happy to have completed their work. You seem to recognize this as well. Lots of obvious (not necessarily good) reasons for this. A topic worth exploring (as you seem to imply).
And if you really want to make things spicy you might consider mentioning Matt Walsh ... or is that a bridge too far??
As I said, am looking forward to the conversation.
The judiciary has provided the legal support for changes in how society sees (and treats) controversial issues.
But now trust in the judicial system is shrinking - 53% favorable according to Gallop, down from 76%.
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/losing-faith-why-public-trust-in-the-judiciary-matters/
As an American conservative (not a Republican), I watch the apparent double standard in many judicial decisions and I am losing my respect for (but not my fear of) the justice system.
Without the rule of law (a societal compact written for all to see and (mostly) agreed to by society), we will lose our foundations.
And I blame politicized judges for partisan decisions, a lazy and emotional legislature for bad laws, and a substitution of laws for "what is right" (civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, etc).
What can we do?
Liberty Fund is an amazing resource, people should check it out if they haven’t. Tons of great free books and other stuff.
Beautiful primer on trusts - a concept many Americans (at least the USA-type) have only heard of in mostly positive framing (unless it’s a complaint about trust-fund children). Yet, they don’t actually understand the much larger concept. In Knowlegde and Dscisions, Thomas Sowell gives the larger concept I’m alluding to: that of “mission driven” (I think that’s the term he uses) lots of ink from - and several directions - but I’m not going to assume for a minute that many people care to browse that lengthy tome, regardless of how brilliant it is. Looking forward to this one!
What do you think will turn around the trans juggernaut in the US and Canada and how best should GC efforts be focused?
I'll be very interested, should you ask the question, if they are able to allow that something other than "patriarchy" may be at play in the issues with which they concern themselves.
We all want surgeries on children to stop. It seems these are common and ongoing in the United States, but, how common are they in the UK?
Ditto puberty blockers.
What is available on the NHS. What is available in the private sector.
i.e. Does provision differ twixt USA and UK?
There is an elephant in the room of journalistic discourse on issues like public trust in the judiciary. The elephant is the leftist 'social justice' sheep-dip that academic institutions throughout the Western world have degenerated into. For several decades now - whilst media political discourse has obsessed about the electoral party political contest between Left and Right - every ambitious young aspirant to the great professions has passed through this sheep-dip (and only a minority have the contrarian independence to be entirely unaffected). The legal profession is no exception as Heather Mac Donald has worked tirelessly to expose. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
When is root and branch reform of law schools going to be recognised as the urgent issue that it truly is?
Who’s interests does the rule against perpetuating and passing on wealth serve?
“rule against perpetuities” was the beginning of the financial crisis; it’s the first thing mentioned in “The Big Short” - the Trusts must seek returns or fail, so they seek Alpha (gain) in ever more contorted places...
leading us so many places including 2008 and now...
Whom is served by this Perpetual and Escalating madness?
.... and to the Point>; this rule simply institutionalizes Chancery upon us all... and we have unknowingly become the slaves of the legal clerisy.
There never was Rule of Law there was always Rule of Men.
A polite fiction that makes the Immaculate Conception appear modest and practical - The Church you know claims only One, no more never mind Perpetual Immaculate Conceptions that persist in Perpetuity- ahem...
The Laws of MEN were much more evenly enforced in the past when as a group the Ruling Class knew it was in their interest to obey their own rules. They don’t now... and so why do we?
Rule of Law?
You don’t even rule yourselves...
My break with the law was ROE, it doesn’t mean Caviar, it meant Rules Of Engagement... which you know are “laws” until they aren’t, and the are or aren’t depends the appearances, or mood, or who’s on duty... and that’s why they changed constantly.... for decades...
When the Sword figures it out (we have) the Pen ain’t 💩.
This is 🇺🇸 , be happy you’re not here... we already know
(You don’t have ___)
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxHbuXzWOp395dKDXoFy9KUyHCjwSHKdox
Some feminists who worry about transideology increasingly also criticize drag and/or playing with gender. What is their view on this? How would they define the borders of being critical of transideology versus a new form of male-female gender purity and being critical of transideology becoming an oppression by itself? Is there a danger that being critical of transideology can overshoot? What would their advice be to the transcritical people who are critical of drag("womanface")/playing with gender in general?
If they are looking for an example, I think of the Sean Altmann discussion. I'm worried that this new feminist longing for purity can overshoot which might hurt their cause and become a new oppression on itself which I think might hurt freedom of speech/expression/creativity and hurt gay people as well (although not as much as transideology).
The initial judge at the employment tribunal ruled that Maya's beliefs were 'not "worthy of respect in a democratic society".' -- and this was held to have legal consequences for her.
This was overturned on appeal, but given the zeitgeist how long do you think the attitude of the appeal tribunal will stick? And how far will it extend respecting other beliefs? If legislation against misinformation or hate speech is passed, will that also colour these judgements-calls made under employment law?
Non-US questioner, but relevant I think for both Joyce and Forstater, which is that much of British public dialogue is quite secular, how do they think they should attempt to deal with societies with a more religious public discourse & may be more gender “conservative?
Nice intro - am looking forward to the podcast.
Not a lawyer (and hence unschooled in the nuances of legal trusts) but it's hard not to notice that various activists groups, after achieving victory, never/rarely actually declare victory and go home happy to have completed their work. You seem to recognize this as well. Lots of obvious (not necessarily good) reasons for this. A topic worth exploring (as you seem to imply).
And if you really want to make things spicy you might consider mentioning Matt Walsh ... or is that a bridge too far??
As I said, am looking forward to the conversation.
It would be nice if one of the brave fighters against trans lunacy didnt also think that "men are obsolete"