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:

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 first.

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 feasible!

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.