You mean what I put in <#398973785426100234> ?

@Timcast the victim blaming part at the end of your Lindsay Shepherd video is bullshit and I'm disappointed in you.

victim blaming?

You're basically saying that if you want to be employable you have to shut up and let left-wing activists abuse you.

you mean when i said she has a right to stand up for herself and you cant expect people to take things lying down

Like she shouldn't have spoken out about the tribunal.

You said "in terms of arguing that she has become unemployable, that's actually not really Laurier's fault".

And then you're saying that her having the foresight to record the tribunal was the genesis for her being unemployable.

Like if she had just taken the abuse in silence and let activists run the university, gone along with their system like a good comrade, that she'd be fine.

What's tragic is that the Canadian justice system is likely to follow your reasoning. I don't think she'll win this suit, and she'll be basically a pariah.

depends how she "became unemployable" was that really lauriers fault?

I don't think she's going to win. And the result of that will be that fewer people in Academia will speak out against the political indoctrination that goes on there.

my guess would be settelment

Because political activist professors with power over your future career can destroy you and face no consequences. The only logical conclusion will be to keep silent and toe the line.

So political indoctrination in university will continue unchallenged. People might joke that the left can't meme and that people are getting annoyed at political correctness, but that's just trivial ankle-biting. The left has real institutional power that is not being challenged.

The left is winning.

She technically did make herself unemployable, but the question would more be whether the government will rule if the environment she wants to work in is acceptable if it considers her actions as cause to be unemployable.

The defense will claim that she has to prove she is unemployable. She has to prove a negative.

She can get a job at starbucks.

It's not a strong lawsuit.

Whenever you are trying to force change you need internal or external pressure. Any action you take will be unlikely to satisfy both parties.

Her only hope is that the university gives her a settlement to avoid bad press, but the press in Canada hate her guts.

from what it sounded like, it has little to do with her employableness .. and more about how she was treated while working there

Was this a public university or a private one?

Lmao i doubt she could get a job at starbucks.

I supose it doesnt really matter, there are tons of things she could put in the law suit

Defamation of character would be the easiest one I could think of

you'd still have to prove an impact to her earnings or future earnings to get any award, though. unfortunately its hard to put a finger on the fact that half or more of the private sector won't hire her and neither will the public/gov sector because it would be very political.

She will never get hired by a state/government agency.

whelp... looks like Tommy Robinson will be dead soon

F

As far as I'm aware there are no universities in Canada that would uphold the principles of the Chicago Letter, and none want the risk of hiring a person like Shepherd. I doubt she could find someone as a PhD advisor.

Says that suit claims that someone told her " showing the clip was illegal under human rights law"

this seems very simple and easy to prove

That's in the recording as far as I'm aware.

So either A it is illegal under human rights law to question laws

or B The university/person has stepped beyond thier bounds

Bill C-16?

Canada does not have free speech, so it's possible that the law could be interpreted that way.

They dont say, just that showing the clip was Illegal under human rights laws

Now the university has to argue one of those two points in court