Amy Gregg | Social Justice Debate | Proposition (1/8) | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
Activists are increasingly turning to the law in their efforts to bring about change. Legal rulings on abortion, the right to assisted suicide, environmental protections, immigration, and LGBTQIA+ rights provision show that the advancement of civil liberties is often behind the bench instead of at the ballot box. Whilst some celebrate this approach, others question whether judges, so often criticised for their unaccountability and lack of diversity, are best placed to legislate on social justice issues. Should we keep activism out of the courtroom and instead place our faith in the political process?
--------------------------------------
Proposition Speakers
1. Rt. Hon. Lord Hoffmann
Former UK Supreme Court judge and current non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong. He has criticised the European Court of Human Rights for increasing activism and judicial overreach.
2. Jeffrey Dudgeon MBE
Former Ulster Unionist Party councillor, who successfully brought the landmark case of Dudgeon v United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights, challenging Northern Ireland’s laws criminalising homosexuality.
--------------------------------------
Opposition Speakers
1. Jolyon Maugham QC
Barrister and Founder and Director of the Good Law Project, whose mission is ‘to achieve change through the law’. He has brought multiple legal cases challenging Brexit and the Government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Helen Mountfield QC
Principal of Mansfield College and practicing barrister, specialising in human rights and equality law. She represented the winning parties before the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State, and has co-authored seven editions of Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998.
3. Yasmine Ahmed
UK Director of Human Rights Watch and former Executive Director of Rights and Security International. She has successfully litigated on issues including arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the detention of women and children in Northeast Syria.
Kindly sponsored by Sidley Austin LLP, an international law firm, employing approximately 2,000 lawyers in 20 offices worldwide, specialising in a variety of areas in both litigation and corporate practices.
Notice has been given of a Private Business Motion on The Society's Rules (Reform) to which Special Attention has been applied by Standing Committee.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Social justice is just bigotry for those who want to feel self righteous for their discrimination. When you add another word to the work justice it becomes less than just justice.
The idea that you abuse someone's rights over the subjective feeling of another person is insanity and unable to be handled consistently. Especially with the conflicting rights and wants.
Here in the US people on the left are openly talking about "decentering the individual" in discussions of justice. What they want is a license to target people that look like they belong to a certain group because people that also look like that group did some wrong to some people that look like they belong to a different group. They don't care if the people punished had no actual role in the injustice or if the people compensated we're ever actually harmed. It's simply tribal warfare carried out by courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
@Prince Talleyrand while both sides can be racist, what you said is as popular to say as it is untrue. There are massive ideological, principal and religious differences between the left and right. Most of the confusion is in the left's successful insistence that fascists, despite their core principals in the far left ideology of Marx, were right wing.
@Prince Talleyrand The funny part is that you are wrong. Socialists of all stripes that I have seen hate Jews. Be them soviet communists or fascists.
Probably you guys should listen more closely to the content of these discussions. You're talking about Twitter wars and they're definitely not.
@@ZaGaijinSmash I don't Twitter, personally, so that can't be it.
Amy, your speech is really excellent. 👌 Social justice can be ensured, if equality among all human beings is practised. Even in this world of technoly, if social justice is debated or discussed, it means that social justice has no existence in its full form and meaning. Heated discussions and debates might become cool, despite exchange of views from proposition and opposition sides, but the soil of the earth will continue to be hot because of the social injustice that exists everywhere. To ensure social justice on this earth, moral education must be made mandatory. Human mind must be humanized, reformed, refined and civilized.
At a young age, how eloquently Amy speaks!
Amy shows her leadership qualities to guide the future generation in order to face social justice fairly and squarely. Well done. Sri Lankan Lawyer and Oxonian Dr Jayantha Pathirana
Really seems like she believes her opinions more important than someone else's that's a dictator we live in a democracy still even if the loopy left hate it
This is fascinating. I'd never considered this key element of the social justice discussion. The previous speaker was also compelling, but perhaps too focused on short term gains, and particularly in regard to the US. This woman presents a more compelling argument against the proposition. Many "anti social justice" people are unaware of the advancements in social justice that have been brought about by courts and politicians that afford them the rights that they take for granted today. It's vital that we decide the mechanism for effecting change going forward.
Part of the problem with social justice is that it perverts justice as a concept. It is even worse when it is implemented through the courts. Their whole job is to enact the will of the written text that was created through he will of the population. When the scotus gave the courts the power to create laws out of thin air is one of the major failures of the court.
It is nice to say that scotus did the thing I like even if that isn't what the law is. But the trickle down of that ruling is horrific. The commerce clause for example was created when socialistic price fixing was used to regulate the economy. A farmer met his max volume he was allowed to sell into the market. So he grew more to feed to his own cattle. That feed was deemed an infringement on interstate commerce because his growing feed was him not buying feed.
This has allowed the federal government to basically run over states rights anytime two states are involved. Even though there is a process to deal with issues between state line crimes.
That is just one method social justice has taken rights away from people just minding their own business.
The American government specifically was designed to be deadlocked. Only able to pass laws when the will of the people are in the majority. There are plenty of other government types that allow for faster movement. Dictatorships for example can shift laws by the hour. That is actually one of the features of that style of government. Granted they tend to not care about civil rights even when that is their claim.
@@vagabondwastrel2361 "Their [courts'] whole job is to enact the will of the written text".
One issue here is not SCOTUS giving the courts the power to create law. It is just that it is done within the context of Common Law which is applied in the US, the UK and former British colonies. Within Common Laws, the source of Law is not only the Legislative Branch but also the Judiciary itself with a system that is heavily based on Precedents. In contrast, in countries where the Civil Law System is in place, laws are codified and written in Law Codes. There is no room for Judges to set laws and precedents.
Here many complain that the system is perverted by judges being social justice activists but in it also regularly works for Conservatives. It is like a pendulum, never really staying in common ground but being prone to excesses.
@@Tsicloh I don't really care about the left or right on this particular issue. The problem is activist judges using their power to pervert the law. It short circuits the legislature and amendment process.
Scotus justified obamacare by shoving it through the commerce clause(this wasn't even argued). A horrific ruling that turns your non entering into the market as a federal issue.
Then those rulings get used to pervert the rule of law even more. When the left still cared about free speech they did great things with activism but without perverting the laws.
Also to be fair the UK doesn't really have a right wing. Closest things you have are parties that unintentionally have a right wing position then make it authoritarian because of the general socialist bent. Not as bad as most of europe but still too close to socialist.
love those debates
It shouldn't be a debate of course anything can be debates but we vote for what we want we can partition the government very easy these day's no need for dictators deciding what morals are
How long will you love these debates? You become a debater and make others love your speeches.
unique representation of ideation.
You really need a better sound engineer in these debates ;D
I agree with the fact that if a law is unfair or bring injustice then it's not the fault of the judge whose role is to apply the law. In such a case, the change should happen in the stage of legislation where laws are passed.
However, in the case of Common Law system, the Laws are not enacted only by the Legislature but also by the Judiciary itself. So the responsiblity to change unfair or unjust laws or to set new laws is also in their hands and not exclusively in the hands of Parliament or the Executive Branch.
So this speaker says that Judges should not set precedents pertaining to social justice. But that is complicated because there should therefore be a catalog of situations on which judges are allowed to make decisions and catalogs of situations where they are allowed to set precedents. How is that going to be feasible?
I have have seen enough with the courts to know that there is always a way for a judge to dump a court case without changing the common law. They can end a case for pedantic excuses or just use timing to null a lawsuit. Or if you want to go deeper a judge can just say "I don't believe your testimony" and bounce the case. They could intentionally cause a mistrial and force the prosecutor to refile. There are many more methods to flex their power without making the rules a nation wide problem.
How is this even a debate? The courts are supposed to interpret law not legislate from the bench.
I thought this was a debate about social justice in general not social justice and the courts.
What kind of courts exist in the UK LOL?
Does she know she's a dictator we vote for what we want morals are opinions nothing more if we let judges decide what's right and wrong we might as well give up now
Nice speeches
Yeah that's probably why they are at Oxford.
Is first criteria to participate in this debate good look? Besides intelligence
Yes, that's why you are not invited to debate here.
Frankly, social justice sometimes fluents very tied with this own interest "those people". I mean sometimes they use their tricks to manipulate some cases to decrese the popularity of the truth. Sometimes called as "bad Democracy" those people use their power to assimilate the kindness. I think social justice must follows the rule of law by using the correctly provent. 🌐🇬🇧❤️
Dream on like Norwegia, MULO when they eliminate their teacher,family,and all called is not my grand ma UNION, German(Norwegia) 33.33 .
I wish I could meet a woman like this who is not vapid.
Vote libertarian 💯
They talk about social justice, while they are at oxford wearing clothing that costs a small fourtune to some.. like come on, does anyone else see the irony.
Not really.
No. What, do you want vagrants in second hand clothes with blue hair up there?
Social injustice is upheld by the international class system. One such example being that anyone who wants to work for the UN must have a degree. Let's say that one has a 2.2 in English literature and they are sent to the Middle East to deal with helping and bringing about female adolescent rights and educating against FGM. Or, is given a job to educate the legal workforces in the world of rape in North Africa... They have no idea, but the law has. My point; when the class system is turned around and people with education, skills AND experience in dealing with social justices and injustices, are employed then we might move forwards. I am offended by the requirement the woman speaker feels in doing her hair and wearing a frock for a cocktail party for such a speech. Very misplaced and backs up my point. Image and the self over point and moving forward. As I recently pointed out to a diplomat working in these fields. ''I have observed for over thirty years, good intentions and works in Africa, and yet everything is lost, going backwards and further more corrupt than it ever was - so, what have you all done?'' I shall not share the answer, as it was pitifully, bit welcomingly honest. Courts are the answer, therefore - and upheld and lawful ones.
Ugh 😑 who could even ponder 🤔 actually liking this woman let alone thinking she was of a higher echelon 🤣 ... As for The muppets at the back so embarrassing and actually racially ironic
I thought she made some great points. What education do you have to slap her down with? Or is it just a bunch of conspiracy theory videos on UA-cam? Care to explain about the "muppets in the back", UK universities are 75/25 white/other and the ratio seems better than 75/25. I don't think you understand irony.
You just seem bitter and jealous of people doing better than you