(incorporating the International Ex-Fetus Association)
A Competent Feminist Lawyer is a Contradiction in Terms
Copyright Peter Zohrab (2003)
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Most parts of the (originally English) Common Law tradition are adversarial. This means that judges (with or without juries) are assisted in getting to the truth of the matter at hand by having lawyers representing the opposing parties debate the issues in a court. Lawyers (barristers) are trained to work within this system, which means that they must understand the value of having both sides represented in court -- even if they are representing themselves without a lawyer. Indeed, it is a basic principle of the Rule of Law (in our unwritten constitution) that a person has the right to know of legally relevant allegations against him/her and has the opportunity to respond to them.
Feminists, however, simply assume that women are/have been disadvantaged, and deduce from that assumption that institutions and policies need to exist to reduce or eliminate this disadvantage. Many institutions and groups have sprung up to carry out this Feminist agenda, and much change has taken place as a result of their lobbying and other activities. It is obvious that a lot of this change has impacted on men and children (both born and unborn).
The Feminist movement is intellectually incompetent, in that it has never attempted even to look for -- let alone assess -- any ways in which men are/have been disadvantaged. It has simply assumed, from the fact that men have been running the World, that they would have been doing it to benefit men, rather than women.
Moreover, since both men and women have believed that men were running the World (see "The Frontman Fallacy"), men have not seen the need -- until recently -- to organise and promote their own point of view on various issues, as women have been doing.
A competent lawyer who considers this scenario must necessarily conclude that only one side (women) is adequately represented in the political propaganda war which is called the Battle of the Sexes, or the Sex War. This is unconstitutional, because it is a breach of the Rule of Law -- extended to the political arena.
So for a male or female lawyer to be a Feminist (as most of them are, based on their view of women's 'oppression' ") is an expression of professional incompetence.
Feminist lawyers and judges believe the Feminist ideology that they have been indoctucated with, and they enjoy the extra power and authority that that ideology imbues them with. Western societies are like courtrooms where Feminism is the prosecution and men -- the defendants -- have no defence counsel.
We are all judges and jurors in the Court of public opinion, so to speak, but only one side of the case gets stated. Because of the lack of organized Masculist resistance, Feminists are allowed to plead both sides of an argument in different contexts:
For example, they say they need a Women's Room at Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand), so that women can breast-feed in private -- but one Male Feminist journalist on Radio New Zealand thought it was so obvious that a female Parliamentarian in Australia should be allowed to breast-feed her baby in Parliament's Debating Chamber that he didn't even bother to hide his prejudice from listeners ! The point is that some men might be embarrassed by bare breasts in public, and some men might not -- but it is not up to women to decide by themselves that they need privacy for breast-feeding in one context, but that they should be allowed to breast-feed in public in another context !
It is time for lawyers to demand that men be represented in the courtroom of political debate !