Has the social justice revolution taken law schools?

[@omidfri]

This was truly educational. Thank you everyone for your time and effort.

[@arashahsani]

Law professors should do this more often and make it public too. Keep up the good work👍👍

[@keshakesha2344]

I am an immigrant from Russia and terrified of what is going on in Canada! What a shame....

[@acezar2644]

get them bruce

[@CK-dp6je]

Very interesting lecture.

[@ManInTheBigHat]

This authoritarian movement is going to lead to a terrible end.

[@nowthatsprogress8708]

Gulags.

[@richardhunter1467]

Great lecture - "you cannot have a victim without a conviction" and so much more...I find lawyers are largely so liberal and like my Jewish friends I cannot fathom why most are liberal/leftists.

[@RadicalAngel]

Bc they're mentally ill

[@luciusseneca2715]

It's getting worse down here in the US as well.

[@twelverules176]

The irony of it is that the number one reason to oppose the “social justice” approach to law is if you actually are fighting for social justice. The “social justice” approach to law doesn’t create social justice. It creates tyranny. Read “The Gulag Archipelago” if you want to see how well the “social justice” approach to law worked out in the former Soviet Union. Hint... the death toll was in the tens of millions. Same in Maoist China. In Cambodia their approach to social justice included executing anyone who wore glasses. They assumed if you wore glasses it was because you had strained you eyes while squinting reading books and this was a telltale sign you were literate and therefore educated. If you were educated you were an enemy of the state as they strive to create their equal workers agrarian paradise. Well documented in “The Killing Fields”

[@xs10tl1]

It was designed to create Tyranny. The Frankfurt School / Critical Theory squad intended to destabilize the West. And the intelligentsia ate it up.

[@jamesbuchanan3888]

At 20 minutes ... There is rule of law, or rule by law.

[@CB-dz7my]

Justice is (supposed to be) blind. But it is not. It sees; has always seen. What, therefore, shall we do? Help it understand what it sees and does not see, so that it may become in practice what it purports to be in the ideal.

[@ciucinciu]

THAT. FUCKING. DOOR!

[@TheOldManRip]

I can think of one legal right (privilege) that one population enjoys over another...women are not required to sign up for selective service.

[@Spoonwood]

The above discussion, I believe, concerns Canadian law. From a quick search it seems that in Canadian law though a male only draft could get re-enacted, there is no Selective Service System similar to United States where an active body maintains records of those eligible for the draft, and whereby individuals currently get penalized for failing to register.

[@Spoonwood]

I believe the genitals of female minors are protected as a matter of law from cutting (no matter how major OR minor the cutting may be), while the genitals of males are not protected from cutting in a similar manner. I am not a lawyer though, and I could be mistaken about Canadian law on that point. So, I think that privilege does still exist in Canadian law.

[@keshakesha2344]

Is it fair to say that Native Canadians are privileged in a legal sense?

[@josephsmyth832]

Law requires cybernetics and unfortunately it also includes entropy. Society is becoming a brave new world for capital

[@jamesbuchanan3888]

Right from the start I disagree. Blind justice is NOT about the same rules applying to everyone. The laws can be corrupt, perverted, and deliberately skewed to provide privilege for some at the expense of others. Social justice is often a conclusion searching for a means of manipulating the process in an effort to obtain the desired outcome. Blind justice IS all about the "process of justice" being fair and impartial without regard to who you are.

[@anthonydevellis6708]

Prof. Pardy, I agree with most of what you say but this you need to work on the delivery. There is no need to use loaded adjectives like "unfortunately." If you make the case well enough and clear enough the words alone will suffice to convince people exactly what your position is on the matter. Frequently I see you using tone and and 'leading the witness' with normative suggestions and I think this is not the right rhetorical style for this context, talking to law schools. I'm on your side, just a point of criticism. I think you're right but the delivery matters. Especially to college students haha.

[@anthonydevellis6708]

@tesora1 with respect I dont think he was dispassionate enough and missed some of the strongest arguments against it. Perhaps I was too harsh though. I've been following these issues closely for pretty much the entire time I've been in undergrad which is four years now. A lot of people are completely new to this issue you're right

[@nosjw8891]

he's suffered (e.g. public insults by his Social justice warrior colleagues at Queen's) for speaking out against the social justice movement at law schools. success in inviting jordan b. peterson to Queen's only led to resentment among those colleagues, rather than opening their minds.

[@nosjw8891]

prof. bruce - please read all these comments! chin up!!