‘Training Legal Warriors To Undermine Canada’

We have repeatedly pointed out that the contemporary billion-dollar Aboriginal Industry is the creation of a Canadian legal profession that, coincidentally, happens to be the chief beneficiary of the expansion of race-based differential treatment in law. To the detriment of Canada’s future, Canadian law schools seem to be gearing up for unlimited expansion of this discrimination-based legal gravy train…

“Courts and academics are transforming the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from a roster of fundamental liberties, into a ‘social-justice’ {‘communist’} charter that justifies curbing individual freedoms instead of protecting them… Individual liberties are no longer fundamental. Everyone is not subject to the same rules. The legal ground is shifting.”

What is a law school for? According to the University of Windsor, revolution.

“Earlier this month, Windsor’s law school released a statement on the jury verdict that acquitted Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley of the second-degree murder of Coulton Boushie. According to the statement, the Canadian legal system is oppressive.

“Canada has used law to perpetuate violence against {so-called} ‘Indigenous Peoples’”,
it states,
“a reinvention of our legal system is necessary.”

“The statement reveals how legal education has lost its way. One could be forgiven for thinking that the purpose of law schools was to train lawyers to understand legal principles and to think logically and critically. Instead, some law schools portray themselves as political actors working for a cause {And should therefore be decertified}.

“At Windsor’s law school,

“we strive toward ‘social justice’ {‘communism’}. We take that commitment seriously.”

“Indeed they do. So do other law schools in Canada, some more explicitly than others.

‘Social justice’ means ‘defeating oppression’ and ‘righting historical wrongs’ — by favouring or blaming people as members of groups, and by undermining Western legal principles such as the rule of law, equal application of the law, presumption of innocence, and freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion.

“Numerous criticisms have been levied at the all-‘white’ {How ‘white’?} jury verdict in the Stanley case. Some {including our foolish federal Cabinet} have advocated limiting an accused’s right to peremptory challenges in jury selection. These objections are short-sighted. All accused have a limited right to dismiss potential jurors. As criminal defence lawyer Sean Robichaud explained to ‘Canadian Lawyer’ magazine after the verdict, ‘indigenous’ people are ‘over-represented’ {‘commit too many crimes’} as accused persons in the criminal justice system, and curbing peremptory challenges to ensure that juries represent victims would prejudice their interests.

“There is an old saying that at any trial, there are four versions of the truth: what the prosecution says, what the accused says, what the jury finds, and what actually happened. I have no idea what transpired at that farm in Saskatchewan. But Windsor’s law professors seem to know — an impressive feat, since they were neither at the scene nor in the courtroom to hear the evidence. Due process exists, in part, to protect us all from the self-righteousness of mobs {In this case, a legal mob…}.

“One might expect Justin Trudeau and his ministers to jump on ideological bandwagons, but it is telling when law schools want to ride along, too.
Windsor’s says that

“the law’s response to Coulton Boushie’s death is tragic, unnecessary and unacceptable.”

“Boushie’s death was indeed tragic and unnecessary, but the law’s response was not. Even the lawyer for Boushie’s family, Chris Murphy, said that

“based on the evidence, the submissions made and the charges that the judge gave to the jury, a route of acquittal was a possibility.”

“Human history is rife with oppression. Women were oppressed when only men could own property; slaves, when they had no right to liberty; ‘indigenous’ people, when they were forced to attend residential schools {All children were — and are — ‘forced’ to go to school}. Oppression results when some people do not have the same legal rights as others.

“But today’s law schools resist the idea of equal application of the law and openly advocate ‘progressive’ {‘reactionary’} policies. For instance, when Trinity Western University, an independent religious institution that receives no government funding beyond its charitable status, proposed to open a law school, the established schools urged provincial law societies to ban TWU’s graduates on the grounds that its community covenant did not reflect ‘progressive’ {‘reactionary’} values. The law societies in Ontario and B.C. obliged. The Supreme Court’s decision on TWU’s challenge of those decisions is pending.

“Law schools may not need to preach revolution much longer. If you haven’t noticed, the tipping point is near. Courts and academics are transforming the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from a roster of fundamental liberties into a ‘social-justice’ charter that justifies curbing individual freedoms instead of protecting them.

“The words of section 15(1) of the Charter, which guarantee that

“every individual is equal before and under the law”,

suggest that the same rules should apply to everyone. However, the Supreme Court has held that the law can nevertheless treat people differently if doing so produces ‘equal outcomes’ {‘communism’}, and that treating people the same — for instance, requiring the same qualifications from a minority job applicant as from others — might even violate section 15(1) if it produces ‘unequal results’.

{For more on our flawed Charter and Section 15, see
The Strange Case of Canadian ‘Legal Equality:
“The political — and therefore, ‘flexible’ — tool that is subsection (2) means that the Constitutional Principle of Section 15(1) cannot really exist as a ‘Principle’, and merely serves as an inspirational introduction to the court-driven social engineering enabled by subsection (2).
“As a result, legal equality of individual Canadian citizens has become a thing of the past…”

https://www.facebook.com/CanadiansForLegalEquality/photos/a.957830780952186.1073741828.956562364412361/957830660952198/?type=3&theater }

‘Section 35(1)’ of the ‘Constitution Act 1982’ entrenches varying rights for different groups of aboriginal people. Courts may impose more lenient penalties on ‘indigenous’ accused pursuant to the Criminal Code and the ‘Gladue’ ‘principles’, under which “the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders” may be taken into account. New rules require those accused of sexual assault to disclose information to the prosecution, such as emails sent by the complainant to the accused, so as to limit the ability of the defence to cross-examine (violating the principle that the burden of disclosure lies upon the Crown rather than the defence). The Law Society of Ontario has begun to compel its members to expressly acknowledge an obligation to promote ‘progressive’ {‘reactionary’} values. Individual liberties are no longer fundamental. Everyone is not subject to the same rules. The legal ground is shifting.

“Not all law professors endorse the path that we are on, and fortunately they can still choose what to teach in their own courses. Not all lawyers or judges agree, either. Many have kept their heads. Give them credit for thinking for themselves. After all, they probably went to a Canadian law school.”

–‘The social justice revolution has taken the law schools. This won’t end well’,
Bruce Pardy, National Post
(Bruce Pardy is professor of law at Queen’s University)

Feature PHOTO:
University of Windsor. (Photo by Mike Vlasveld)


“No law school in the country may be more frank about producing ‘social justice warriors’ than the University of Victoria, where Dean Jeremy Webber says in his welcoming message the following:

“…this faculty has prided itself on its commitment to ‘social justice’… At UVic, it means all members of faculty accept that legal education ought to speak to all members of society, including those who are ‘marginalized’.

Our focus on ‘indigenous’ legal traditions, for example, has been second to none… Different faculty members define their particular focus differently, but all share the general objective…”

“Aside from the unsettling suggestion that all the law professors at UVic think the same (surely an odd bragging point), or at least agree on the larger goals – this, after all, is not so different from the Law Society of Ontario’s insistence that its members acknowledge their obligation to promote ‘progressive’ {‘reactionary’} values — Webber has it pretty much right, too.

“With a few exceptions, Canada’s law schools are increasingly determined not to be ‘left behind’ by other faculties, such as education studies and social work, where SJWs, as they’re often called, make no bones about being all about ‘anti-racism’, ‘gender equity’ and wholesale reform to the institutions of the country.

“That’s what ‘social justice’ means, as Queen’s University law prof Bruce Pardy noted a couple of weeks ago in the ‘National Post’. He was writing about the verdict in the Colten Boushie case and the University of Windsor’s law school statement about it, in which the school pronounced the legal system as oppressive and said

“a reinvention of our legal system is necessary.”

“Now for as long as there have been lawyers, there have been lawyers fighting for the ‘progressive’ values of their day, and against injustice, in a range of ways — representing poor clients ‘pro bono’ (short for ‘pro bono publico’, which is Latin meaning ‘a service provided free and for the public good’), taking on unpopular causes or clients, even focussing their practices in areas they believe are under-served, and working for peanuts in legal aid clinics or on legal aid certificates…

“That’s all good, of course, even noble. And the same holds true for law professors and law students: As Pardy said in an email Tuesday, it’s perfectly legitimate for prof and student to

“pick apart judgments as they see fit and articulate the values that they believe the law should reflect”.

“It’s qualitatively different, though, when law schools get into the muck of things, espouse and impose a particular set of values or opinions and a way of thinking. In the theatre that is a law faculty, the dean and the administration are the equivalent of the judge in a courtroom, and when judges do this, they’re invariably criticized for “descending into the arena”, meaning getting down and dirty.
{Meaning ‘losing their objectivity’…}

“As Pardy said,

It is not legitimate for a law school to do so, because then the institution becomes a political actor imposing an ideology on their professors and students”.

“And lots of the law schools are doing it, not just at Windsor and Victoria.

“On Feb. 13, Adam Dodek, the dean of the common law faculty at the University of Ottawa, sent a message about the Boushie verdict to his students, extending “our deepest sympathies” to the Boushie family and ‘indigenous’ people, which is fair enough {Why?}.

“Then he said, in part,

“We recognize that the legal institutions of this country have not only failed to deliver justice to ‘indigenous’ peoples of this country but have in fact continued to perpetrate many injustices. We acknowledge that racism still very much exists in our justice system {?}.

“As jurists, professors, and law students, it is incumbent upon us to speak out against injustice, especially within our justice system.”

“As one U of O law student said, the email made clear that

“There are acceptable and unacceptable views at Canada’s universities”.

“A self-described ‘conservative’ student, he said that while he rolled his eyes at professors expressing their views in class, the dean’s email
really got to me”.

“He’d read a lot about the Boushie trial, he said, and formed his own views, “which were that this was a complicated case” that raised all kinds of questions, including about race.

“But as the dean’s message made clear, these kinds of ideas are not acceptable. All 12 of the jurors were bigots.”

“The message wasn’t as strong as Windsor’s, he said,

“but its purpose is pretty much the same… As students of the faculty, we had our marching orders. The decision was racist and so is our legal system”.

“As Pardy said in his email, when universities take on ‘social justice’ mandates, they

“become combatants in the culture wars”
and this is
“especially insidious when it comes to the law schools, since they are training tomorrow’s lawyers and judges.

“They will graduate from institutions funded with public money to promote the views that legal justice and ‘progressive’ {‘reactionary’} values are synonymous, and that Western legal principles are oppressive.”

–‘The wrong kind of justice warriors at Canada’s law schools’,
Christie Blatchford, National Post, March 13, 2018


COMMENT: “It is utterly demented because it ushers in the concept of race based justice. I mean, this is what was practiced in the Third Reich. The skin colour may have changed but the legal principle is that same. It is a recipe for state sponsored injustice.
“It is very disturbing that those criticizing the verdict in the “Boushie case” never discuss the point of law or the aspects of the trial that they believe were incorrect but only the fact that he was ‘first nations’. The implication seems to be that the race of the “victim”, rather than our legal system. should have led to a guilty verdict.”
“Things are going to get mighty interesting in the coming years as it’s becoming clearer every day that the silent majority does NOT agree with these ideological activists and they’re running out of patience with actors in the system that virtue signal with grandiose speeches and ideas that simply DO NOT mesh with the real world. As patience runs out with SJWs and their shenanigans there will be blowback and it won’t be pretty.”

“Christie Blatchford’s recent thought-provoking article “The wrong kind of justice warriors at Canada’s Law Schools” got me thinking about ‘social justice’ and access to the Criminal Justice System in Canada.

“In recent months, there has been much discussion, and some debate about the obligation of lawyers to promote equality, diversity and inclusion, and our judicial system has come under criticism for perceived differential treatment of certain groups within the Canadian Society.

“As a lawyer practicing in Ontario, I am now required by the Law Society of Ontario to create a statement of principles to

“promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally and in my behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public”.

“While this may all be well meaning, I am troubled by the fact that promoting all the above-noted concepts seems to focus on one factor alone:
the race of both lawyers and clients;
whereas in my experience as a lawyer who has practiced law for over ten years, there are many factors which may be barriers to access to the justice system. These factors include — but are not limited to — economic disparity, mental health and addiction issues and the lack of government-funded programs to address those issues, as well as lack of a support system for accused people before the courts.

“I recently had an occasion to spend an entire day in a bail court where all of the accused were charged with drug-related offences. I had the opportunity to observe tens of accused be brought before the Court and observed the following:

–Accused with apparent mental health problems, some of whom were self-aware enough to ask about a mental health worker who could possibly assist them. Unfortunately, there were no mental health workers in Court to assist those accused.

–Accused with obvious drug addiction issues; who, in my opinion, should have been in rehabilitation or medical facilities, but who unfortunately would be spending the foreseeable future in prison.

–Accused who did not have lawyers or whose lawyers were not in court on that day and whose cases were adjourned to other dates because of lack of representation.

–Lack of family and community support for many of the accused, who were already at a disadvantage due to their economic status, addiction or mental health issues.

–Accused who had lawyers and sureties present, but whose cases could not be reached for a bail hearing because there was only one courtroom, one Justice of the Peace, and one Crown who was available to deal with tens of matters that were in court that day.

“What didn’t appear to be an issue, however, was the race or ethnicity of the accused, as the accused were from many diverse backgrounds including Caucasian, East and West Asian and African American, and they all faced the same issues that would make access to the justice system difficult.

“I treat my clients individually based on their legal needs and any factors that may affect their legal defence and their navigation of the criminal justice system. While those issues have been extremely diverse, in my experience race or ethnicity was not a factor that played a role in their legal defence and protection of their rights.

“I believe focusing on race or ethnicity alone will set a dangerous precedent which may lead to ignoring other key factors that make access to the justice system difficult for many accused. Focus on race and ethnicity may also have the opposite effect and further marginalize certain groups and create prejudice.

“As lawyers and lawyers-to-be (law students), it’s important to focus on the individual needs of our clients rather than putting them in a box based on their race or ethnicity, to ensure obtaining the best result possible for each and every client.”

–‘Social Justice: Perspective of a Criminal Defence Lawyers’,
Sayeh Hassan, The Post Millennial, March 16, 2018


COMMENT: “Surely the Law Society does not want its members to discriminate between colors, creeds and classes – this would hardly be fair or proper or desirable.”
{But it IS what they are setting up…}

See also:
Social Justice’ Killing Education’ (OISE/TDSB) {December 27, 2017}:
“Every school board, school and classroom will be re-engineered to root out {only ‘white’} ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination’. School boards will collect data on race and ethnicity to ensure that ‘equity’ {‘race’} is reflected in everything from staff hires to student suspensions. Teaching materials will be revised to be less ‘Eurocentric’ {‘intellectual’}. Children will be taught the {one-sided, Leftist} history of ‘colonialism’, residential schools and ‘oppression’. Kids in the “applied” stream will be placed in the academic stream, because streaming is ‘discriminatory’…”

More Fascist-Left Speech Repression’ (North American campuses)
{April 14, 2017}:
“To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful). That is just the kind of public arena that the Left has been trying to bring to the United States for years — particularly on college campuses.”
Post also at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s