Ontario superior court castigates the effects of creeping Wokism in family proceedings
Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson
President of The New Enlightenment Project
Lloyd is a registered doctoral psychologist with competencies in counselling psychology, educational psychology (including ability assessments) and human resource development. He also has also published on residential school syndrome, the structure of the aboriginal self, the application of memes to self-understanding, the evolution of spirituality and religion, prior learning assessment and recognition, the treatment of suicide ideation and attention deficit disorder.
“When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the courtroom?
[2] And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers? Especially when children’s lives are at stake?
[3] How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?
[4] Should judges sit back as the concept of “Judicial Notice” gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence
[5] And is “misinformation” even a real word? Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent? To de-legitimize questions and strategically avoid giving answers. Blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system. Each party always has the onus to prove their case and yet “misinformation” has crept into the court lexicon. A childish – but sinister – way of saying “You’re so wrong, I don’t even have to explain why you’re wrong.”
[17] The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues.
[18] In contrast, the father focussed extensively on labelling and discrediting the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t worthy of consideration.
a. This odious trend is rapidly corrupting modern social discourse: Ridicule and stigmatize your opponent as a person, rather than dealing with the ideas they want to talk about.
b. It seems to be working for politicians.
c. But is this really something we want to tolerate in a court system where parental conduct and beliefs are irrelevant except as they impact on a parent’s ability to meet the needs of a child?
[22] But there’s a bigger problem here. An uglier problem.
[23] We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably we’re seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom. It now appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish anyone who doesn’t agree with you. ”
0 Comments