So I am back into another uni term, and as such there are many fantastic ( read: revolting, exasperating, offensive) quotations from my law readings that need to be shared!
From my Property in Law and Equity I text:
There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination and engages the affections of mankind[sic!], as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man[sic!] claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individuals in the universe.
-William Blackstone, Commentaries Bk 2
And…
It is not surprising that the fiction that land granted by the Crown had been beneficially owned by the Crown was translated to the colonies and that Crown grants should be seen as the foundation of the doctrine of tenure which is an essential principle of our land law. It is far too late in the day to contemplate an allodial or other system of land ownership. Land in Australia which has been granted by the Crown is held on a tenure of some kind and the titles acquired under the accepted land law cannot be disturbed.
- Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 49 (Brennan CJ)
And from my Health Law and Ethics course…
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens [sic!] for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence [sic sic sic!]. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
- Holmes J in all his eugenicist, abelist glory, re: why the state should permit the sterilisation of Kerry Buck ( an intellectually dys-abled woman who is described as “feeble minded; the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child”); Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), 207
In Ethics and Law for the Health Professions, I get to learn about the gross ways in which dudes have exploited the trust and vulnerability of women by lying to them about their identity, and/or making them think raping them was part of ‘standard’ medical procedure:
There have been a series of criminal cases where courts have found that there has been no understanding of the nature of the act performed, including:
- a girl who has sexual intercourse [sic!] with a doctor, wrongly believing it was a medical procedure ( R v Case (1850) 4 Cox CC 220):
- a girl who agreed to have sexual intercourse [sic!] with a man wrongly believing him to be a doctor and it to be treatment ( R v Harms (1944) 2 DLR 61 ( Sask CA));
- A woman who agreed to sexual intercourse [sic!] with the defendant in the belief ( wrongly) that he was medically qualified and that he was treating her ( R v Flattery(1877) 2 QBD 410(CCCR));
- A woman who agreed to an intimate examination by the defendant believing ( wrongly) that he was a doctor and she was receiving treatment ( R v Maurantonio (1967) 65 DLR (2d) 674 (Ont CA);
- A woman who consented to her breasts being fondled by a man who deceived her into thinking he was conducting a medical examination ( R v Linekar [1995] 2 HFC 599).
Ian Kerridge, Michael Lowe and Cameron Stewart, Ethics and Law for the Health Professions ( 3rd ed, 2009) 297
More quotations to come!
