Avian Jurisprudence

Bill of Indictment by Form of Open Letter to: Wilfrid Laurier University

in Fowl Specimen

(Issued by in-house ornithologist & necrologist H. SCHADENFREUDE)

WHEREIN: The audio Evidence & gender Circumstances of Lindsay Shepherd’s secretly recorded meeting with Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel have been deemed sufficient to reflexively label Wilfrid Laurier University’s president, professors, and disgruntled student body as criminally aggressive — beyond ANY reasonable doubt whatsoever — by the legal standards of Wilfrid Laurier University’s “Gender & Sexual Violence Policy” c/o Canada’s Bill C-16, and by certain judicial subsects of social media.

ADDRESSMENT: Dear CONCERNED STUDENTS & FACULTY OF WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY (henceforth given the pronouns “you” & “they” for sake of simplicity),

Personally, I write to you baffled & disoriented, inflamed with severe ideological indigestion. Professionally, by the negative reports of ONE OR MORE COMPLAINANTS (referred hereto also as “they” for sake of confidentiality & lack of creativity), I write to you judicially & executively motivated towards two objectives: #1) to issue an indictment that, partially pending the outcome of objective #2, seeks total authoritarian control of your entire beings, and #2) to securely & secularly salvage what’s left of your hell-buggered souls. (Fear not! Avian law considers itself very compassion-oriented.)

COMPLAINT(s): Wilfrid Laurier University’s faculty & student body have demonstrated an intense allegiance to bigotry, hate, & intolerance — and possibly other horrendous personality defects — evidenced by their targeting of one female educator: Lindsay Shepherd.

HARMS INFLICTED: Mostly intangible & stress-related, but surely harmful nonetheless. The one or more complainants informed me that their CORTISOL STRESS LEVELS seemed to have excelled beyond normal parameters, possibly (although unverifiably) to autoimmune proportions, as a result of Wilfrid Laurier’s apparent anticlivity against female educators. CONSIDER ALSO: their pet dogs, who are also harmfully impacted by stress, and who harbor an immense capacity for human-to-canine empathy. Depending on an e-mail response from a local veterinarian, the degenerates — er, defendants — might be in for it for animal abuse as well.

FURTHER: I, too, suffer from stress-related pains and violence, and I continue to suffer as I write. In fact, I’ve tallied this bill of indictment as an offence in and of itself; it pains me to write this letter, and I resent the accused of Wilfrid Laurier further for perpetrating this pain upon me. (YET, DISREGARD: my deep, inner penchant for fetishistic self-abuse and masochistic pleasures; they do not apply to the abuses incurred via this case.) The more I’m annoyed by these external pressures, the more my optimistic Democratic spirit deteriorates. That positivity has kept me young. This stress ages me. Baldness looms. One may thus feel compelled to perform the easy calculation implicating these judicial procedures as part of the accused’s attempts at erasing my personhood — me, an innocent prosecutor; or rather shall I say at this point: a dying defendant.

LET IT HERETO BE KNOWN: I am a victim of slow murder. I defend via prosecution. Cortisol wracks my cognition. Your abusive defense only turns the screw further. And so if I err, let it hereto be known: the fault is not my own. Society has teamed against me.

I fear death and discomfort. I froth orally.

FURTHERMORE: In the encasement of this rapid-wrinkling skin, an inner oppression writhes, floundering for financial compensation. Never forget the famous feminist dictum: THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL — or as basic algebra thus dictates: THE POLITICAL IS PERSONAL. And so, in addition to the original offenses pertaining to Lindsay Shepherd, we, too, find personal fault with the politics at play; and so demand a monetary arrangement in our personal favor.

IN CONCLUSION: If the traditional court of law fails to deem the prosecutorial defendants guilty by our defensive prosecutions, we turn to the pertinent social media channels (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.) to open a new case against the traditional court of law, overriding the overarching constitutional standards by the whims of our politically personal politic-personalities. Whichever the outcome, we also demand that the Canadian government grants employment to one of our community, so that our executive power may be broadened — er, for tolerance & diversity, I mean.


H. Schadenfreude


Leave a Reply

Notify of