Home > Issues
> Stupidity > Stupidity is a Sex-War
Stupidity is a Sex-War Issue (2)
© Peter Zohrab 2005
Stupidity is a Sex-War issue ! See: stupidity.html.
Other articles on this theme will follow.
In fact, this article is not so much about stupidity per se as
about sloppiness, pretentiousness, and the mindless adoption of Feminist propaganda
by the legal profession. This is of great societal importance because of the
immense power of that profession.
Although popular claims abound that certain professions, such as brain surgery
and rocket science, require a high level of intelligence, the legal profession
seems to be the only one that creates spin about the intelligence etc. of
its own practitioners. In Court, it is customary to refer to all other practitioners
as "learned", and the media frequently parrot practitioners by using
such phrases as "the finest legal minds", etc. In fact, however,
I have found in Law School and at the Institute of Professional Legal Studies
that a vast amount of stupidity exists in the profession, and I have had this
impression corroborated by outside obervers whose opinion I respect.
Here is an example of apparent, extreme sloppiness by Professor Tony Angelo,
who taught me Comparative Law and part of the Property Law course at Victoria
University of Wellington:
|(Below) My test answer on the French Civil Code, as marked by Professor
Angelo. This was an open book test, and I was able to consult the document
on the right (of which I had a partial copy with me) during the test.
|(Below) Relevant excerpt from the French Civil Code, from the webpage:
BOOK FOUR PROVISIONS APPLICABLE IN MAYOTTE : 2284 to 2302
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE PRELIMINARY TITLE : 2286
PROVISIONS RELATED TO BOOK ONE : 2287 to 2293
PROVISIONS RELATED TO BOOK TWO : 2294 to 2296
PROVISIONS RELATED TO BOOK THREE : 2297 to 2302
The issue is how many books there are in the French Civil Code. In a lecture,
Professor Angelo had said that there were only three. In the course of my
studies, however, I had noticed that there were apparently four, so I printed
out the relevant page, or part of it, and referred to it during the test.
I did not bother to complain about his marking, because I had never been able
to convince any lecturer in that Faculty to change their marks when I had
complained previously. I had managed to get some marks changed by appealing
to the Dean, but he had eventually written me a letter warning me not to complain
so much/at all (depending on how you interpret his letter).
In an essay on charities in my Property Law class, I had included a short
paragraph mentioning the tax implications of the law we were supposed to discuss,
but Professor Angelo wrote in the margin:
"Why do you have this part ? Explain why it's relevant."
I went to see him and explained to him that I hadn't explained why it was
relevant because it was obvious, and because I was writing within a tight
word-limit. However, I was unable to get him to give me any credit for it,
for the simple reason that there was no mention of taxation in his model answer
for that essay-topic -- despite the fact that he admitted to me that taxation
was a relevant issue ! The general pattern in that Law School was for lecturers
to give no credit for any argument that they hadn't thought of themselves
Professor Angelo is supposed to be an expert on Trusts and on French law,
and the inability of French law to cope easily with trusts was one key point
in his lectures, but I was able to suggest to him in class, off the top of
my head, one way that the French Civil Code could be adapted to cope with
the concept of Trusts which had not occurred to him, and which he agreed was
The link from stupidity to Feminazism occurred when I asked to address the
class in my capacity as one of the two student representatives. Professor
Angelo asked me what I was going to say, and when I said I was going to resign,
on the grounds that the position involved interaction with the Students' Association,
which was anti-male, he addressed the class, and warned them that what I was
going to say was "political". This intervention by him was offensive
and oppressive, since that Law School taught Feminist Jurisprudence as an
optional course, and even taught Feminist propaganda in a compulsory course
(Criminal Law), by showing an emotive Feminist propaganda video on Domestic
violence for one hour, and giving a platform to two Rape Crisis activists
for another hour. This double standard amounts to waging war on men, and such
lecturers and institutions should bear appropriate consequences.
These incidents concerning Professor Angelo are particularly clear-cut,
but there were several other incidents involving other lecturers which were
just as serious, although some of them would be less comprehensible to a non-legal
audience. It was embarrassing to be taught by idiots, and depressing to be
taught by lecturers, and alongside students, who often had little concept
of freedom of speech or academic freedom -- except for themselves.
7 August 2015