Councils, What Judges Need To Know

 

Judges must recognize that councils often employ ad hominem attacks to discredit members of the public rather than addressing the substance of their claims. 

This tactic is not simply an unfortunate byproduct of legal disputes—it is a deliberate strategy. Bureaucratic institutions, by their nature, seek to preserve authority and minimize challenges, which can reduce their moral standing in public eyes.

When confronted with legitimate grievances, councils frequently shift the focus from the argument to the individual making it, portraying them as unreasonable, vexatious, or uninformed. This can cause significant harm to innocent parties. 

It not only distracts from the core issue but also creates a chilling effect, discouraging others from seeking justice. 

The judiciary’s role is to cut through rhetorical distortions and demand reasoned argumentation and thorough evidence. 

Judges must be vigilant in identifying when councils rely on character attacks instead of engaging with the evidence. 

A person’s temperament, persistence, or prior disputes with authorities are irrelevant to the merits of their case. 

If a council’s defense hinges on undermining an individual’s credibility rather than addressing the legal or factual basis of their claim, that defense should be seen for what it is: an evasion and possibly conspiracy to pervert justice, leading to perjury, misfeasance etc. 

To prevent this, courts should insist on strict evidentiary standards, challenging councils to justify their arguments without resorting to personal attacks. Impartialty would foster better relations.

By refusing to entertain ad hominem reasoning, judges uphold the principles of fairness, ensuring that the state does not gain an unjust advantage over those it is meant to serve.


Elizabeth Lucy Robillard 2025

Ai assisted


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Witchhunt

From my upcoming memoir: 'My son suffers from severe autism or possibly Angelman syndrome (which wasn't definitively excluded when he underwent genetic testing). As a concerned parent, I reached out to several specialists in the field of autism, desperate to know how best to support him. In 1994, when my son was two, I started an information service called Autistic Information Matters to seek answers, provide support, and share facts. After much difficulty with professionals—including a Professor Ben Sacks who cruelly suggested I send my two-year-old to an institution (I told him to get out)—I discovered Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). At the time, I believed it might be a miracle cure that could help my son begin speaking. However, after extensive research and insights from other parents, I came to realize that autism is an umbrella term, encompassing a variety of conditions rather than a single disorder. (I have written more about this elsewhere.) During this time, I wa...
Read more

Evidence Against Trans?

  chatgpt & liz lucy robillard, April 21st, 2025 It's natural to want to protect women from harm, especially from serious threats like rape. Some argue that to prevent even one assault, trans women (biological males) should be excluded from female-only spaces like toilets and prisons.  While this comes from a place of caution, it doesn’t hold up under evidence or ethical scrutiny. *Studies consistently show that inclusive policies do not increase assault rates in restrooms or changing rooms* Trans women using female spaces *does not* correlate with higher risks of violence against cisgender women according to studies.  The idea that cis men might pretend to be trans to access women’s areas is *extremely rare* and laws already exist to punish such behavior.  Are those laws effective enough? On the other hand, trans women face high rates of violence when forced into male-designated spaces, especially in prisons or public areas.  Denying them access often puts ...
Read more

Honouring Abused Women

  The idea that vulnerability disqualifies you from safety is perverse. It’s a cruel inversion of morality, peddled by the very professions sworn to protect. Social workers (not all, but enough to matter), lawyers, psychiatrists, police—these institutions too often treat a traumatised woman as a nuisance, a liability, or worse, a fantasist. If you flinch, you’re dramatic. If you weep, you’re unstable. If you speak up, you’re paranoid. This grotesque logic renders a woman’s suffering not only invisible, but suspect. They do not ask, What happened to her? They ask, What is wrong with her? It’s psychiatry’s favourite bait-and-switch. Diagnoses fly like confetti—borderline, histrionic, treatment-resistant—as though medical jargon could smother the stench of misogyny. And the legal profession is no better. A woman under siege is told to document everything while her stalker moves freely, slipping through legal loopholes like grease through fingers. The solution is not to plead more pre...
Read more