Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • So today I'm talking to two of my compatriots, those in this ongoing discussion in Canada, a vote free speech issues including Compelled speech.

  • And I met Jared Brown and Bruce Party.

  • Jared's practicing lawyer and Bruce is, ah, professor at Queen's University in the law school there, and I met them both when we were when we manifested a mutual interest last year in Bill See 16 which we all regarded as, um, a piece of legislation that was infringing on the rights to free speech of Canadian individuals in a manner that hadn't bean ever attempted before.

  • And more recently, the Law Society of Upper Canada, soon to be known as the Law Society of Ontario, has put forward a requirement for all of its members.

  • So all of the lawyers in Ontario to produce a document of principle that we all have bean talking about.

  • The three of us have been talking about that we regard as another but far more egregious example of compelled speech.

  • So I'm gonna let Jared introduce himself and say a little bit about who he is.

  • He testified with me at the Canadian Senate last year.

  • Bruce Party also testified at the Senate on Bill See 16 and Bruce was also the lawyer that I debated.

  • He played Devil's Advocate at Queen's University, and some of you watching this will be familiar with that video.

  • So, Jared, I'll let you introduce yourself and then Bruce and then Bruce Bruce recently wrote a column for The National Post on this new requirement by the Law Society.

  • And so we're gonna let him begin the discussion property onto you.

  • Jerk.

  • I'm an everyday litigator.

  • I'm a commercial litigator in Toronto.

  • I've been practicing for about 15 years, doing increasing more and more human rights tribunal work, things like that, Um, and obviously stepped into the breach on C 16.

  • And as far as I can tell, I may have been the only practicing lawyer that actually spoke out against the legislation.

  • There were certainly a lot of lawyers, including the Canyon Bar Association, that were arraigned in favor of the legislation.

  • But as far as I can tell boots on the ground, I think I was the only one.

  • So I've got a pretty benign practice, but but certainly of ah, taken up the fate of people.

  • Bruce, Thanks.

  • Well, this this issue arose for me a couple of weeks ago when I received an email from the Law Society and all lawyers get these e mails to do various things.

  • But this was different because it announced a new requirement for this year.

  • Now, Jared, I think, was aware of this developing before I was.

  • But like many other lawyers in the problems, this is supposed to first indication that this new requirement existed.

  • And essentially, the email said, One of the things I said most others was that every licensed lawyer now is required to draft and submit what they're calling a statement of principles.

  • And that statement is required to express your agreement and the value you place on inclusion, diversity and equality and the fact that you will actively promote those values.

  • And that's me just sprung off screen as a, uh, radius example off forced speech out the same kind that we were talking about under ability 16 but but worse, this one actually requires you to make a full fledged statement.

  • This will be subject to their approval in order to maintain your license.

  • In other words, this is not a matter of it being suggested to you that you might ought to want to do this.

  • This is a condition of your ability to practice law in the problems monetary.

  • So, uh, this destruct me as a matter that needed to be aired publicly.

  • I needed to be discussed amongst lawyers in the province because this is a a slow march to a dark place, and I think that's where it all began.

  • Well, it was concerning to me when I encountered this.

  • I mean, I'm the member of a college as well the college of psychologists.

  • And my sense of this is that if the lawyers fold and and go along with this, the probability that this will be required of every professional in Ontario and then very rapidly every professional in Canada is extremely high.

  • Because if the lawyers who are you know, a relatively disagreeable bunch and who are very familiar with the law and with common law in general are willing to have their political beliefs dictated to them by their college, then the probability that the rest of us will be able to withstand that I think, is extremely low, strong.

  • A strong independent bar is always supposed to be the defense, or at least one line of defense against tyranny or against government overreach.

  • And by having the lawyers through under the guise of their regulatory body, being compelled to speak or share opinions.

  • Um, it's obviously something scary, and I think it's something that lawyers should wake up to and they need to push back against compelled speech, which was obviously the issue on C 16 is a particularly nefarious infringement and intrusion.

  • Yeah, well, it's mean.

  • It's one thing to put restrictions on what people can say.

  • I mean, I know you can't incite someone to crime, for example, but it's a completely different thing to require people to a spouse a particular political stance, especially when it's being reviewed by what's essentially an arbitrary committee.

  • And when the punishment is so jazzed draconian as a CZ, potentially losing your right to practice and that that's enforced as a mandatory like the first step was to make that mandatory rather than as a suggestion.

  • So let's let's just emphasize this point the distinction between restrictions on speech, which which are not good things in our debatable and so on.

  • But this is a different category question.

  • This is compelled speech.

  • This is a department that makes you say something you may not agree with.

  • And I mentioned in the columns statements from the Supreme Court of Canada.

  • And maybe I'll just read out one of those just to just to make the point, because even the court has said explicitly that, uh, this is this is no on in a free society.

  • You hear the words of the Supreme Court forcing someone to express opinions that they do not have used totalitarian and as such, helium to the tradition of free nations like Canada, even for the repression of the most serious crimes, which, of course, is not in question here story Jordan, That was.

  • That was the cornerstone of not only the opinion piece that I put up on my website about C 16 but also in the cornerstone of the presentation that was made to the Senate is that this is a particularly egregious infringement on freedom of expression.

  • You're having to mouth opinions on ideas that may not be your own, and the government is forcing me to do it.

  • And obviously, in this instance, you've got your regulatory body, which which holds your license in your ability to carry on the livelihood in the chosen profession that you're in telling you that you've got to start voicing These opinions soldiered when we talked before to one of the things that you pointed out and Bruce you had commented on this as well.

  • Is that you know, the Law Society administration theoretically did some background work before deciding that this was a necessity.

  • And they produced a report essentially proclaiming that the the law the people who are practicing law in Ontario are essentially racist in your orientation.

  • Which is why this this racist and perhaps misogynist a swell, Which is why this piece of administrative let's call it law requirements has come into practice.

  • But it isn't obvious that their own data support that conclusion.

  • You can easily read what they wrote as pretty, providing pretty compelling evidence that the legal profession, the demographics of the legal profession, for what that's worth, they are transforming quite rapidly.

  • And so, um, the the thing that concerns me as well from a psychological perspective about this sort of thing is that lawyers who agreed to participate in this process are basically admitting their racism and misogyny.

  • on a conscious and unconscious basis and thereby convicting themselves like they're guilty.

  • To begin with.

  • They they don't have an opportunity to prove their innocence and by by going along with these requirements there basically admitting through their action that the accusations that are being thrown at them both individually and as a collective are our totally accurate but require immediate remediation.

  • Yeah, well, I mean the, uh, the wrecker.

  • The requirement that's being rolled out right now is the result of a A.

  • I think it's about a 58 page report that had 13 recommendations that were passed by Complication, which is the governing body of the law society.

  • And the report itself was entitled strategies to address issues of systemic racism in the legal profession's.

  • I mean, that statement on its own is saying that our our industry, as well as the law society organization itself it systemically racist and clearly that's a to me.

  • I mean, it's it's ah ah very bold statement, and one that I think, um, requires some level of scrutiny.

  • You know that the group that came up with this report is an esteemed group.

  • These are all highly respected Well, accomplished individuals.

  • And there is a body of data that they've produced a CZ well as some qualitative anecdotal stories as to some of the issues that are being faced by what they call racialized licensees.

  • I mean, the data is something that a lot of people are going to look at.

  • But I do encourage people to look at it and see what, what the basis on that finding that were a systemically racist industry and obviously profession.

  • I encourage people to look at it, study the report.

  • I can assure you that most most lawyers won't 58 pages something that happened back in December.

  • But there's there's a lot of shocking information in there, and there's obviously some shocking findings.

  • But yeah, I know it's it's got me concerned because my mind industry has now been deemed racist by the body that governs it.

  • Yeah, yeah, well, in one of the things that's really appalling about doubt, I think, and also about the requirements for the statement of principles is that there's a pronounced ideological bent to them, and the first is three idea of systemic racism because the way that you prove systemic racism is is I would say Let's say call it questionable method logically, to say the least, because the basic concept is is that you divide the population up by racial, ethnic and sex based identification, which you can do in a very large number of ways, by the way.

  • And then you compare any organization to that population based division.

  • And if the the ratio of individuals categorized in the general population isn't the same as the ratio of individuals in that profession, then you can automatically make a case for systemic racism.

  • And that's a very, very weak methodology.

  • No credible scientist would regard that, and I go.

  • We would regard that as proof of anything and worse.

  • I can't imagine that any any claim like that would stand up in something resembling a court of law if you know if it was possible to take a group to court, because there's all sorts of reasons why there might be differential representation in a group.

  • And that and that is assuming that that's what the Bennett shows and in many respects, that's actually not what this data show.

  • So I take your point about the methodology.

  • But even so, even if you accept that methodology, it's not crystal clear that that's what the numbers actually suggest.

  • Get back for a moment to your to your implication.

  • Point me, I agree that the requirement to make this statement in this context essentially put be interpreted as though it were required to make a confession about what it is you've done wrongly in the past and what it is you will do now in the present to correct it.

  • That's an individual.

  • And there's also the trouble that once you have written a statement so as to to comply with the requirement, then you have on the wreck for a statement of what it is that you believe and they're after.

  • Your future actions could be compared to that statement so as to show that you are not acting income in the compliance with what you have said you believe, or that on one occasion or the other you haven't been telling the truth.

  • So some so I've heard some lawyers say, in response to this requirement that oh, well, this is not a big deal.

  • I'm just gonna write a statement.

  • They'll put it in a file, sit in some corner of the law society computer and who cares if little big deal?

  • But actually it is a very big deal because there they are hurting you towards pulls a certain way to think a certain way to express yourself in a certain restriction on your behavior and your expression in terms of how you what you say you believe in in the future about this kind of law and all right.

  • But also you're you're subscribing to this idea that the system is racist, that the that the industry in the profession themselves are racist and that, to me, that implies hopelessly corrupt.

  • And that shocks me.

  • And I don't think I want my industry advertising that unless, of course, you know we've got a knish you here, and it's not entirely clear to me from reading the report that we do, but I mean, Jordan may have some comments, obviously, about writing, writing a statement in the declaration and what that means.

  • But I just find that, you know, having to affirm in a statement that our industry is hopelessly corrupt is it's not something I'm willing to do at this point.

  • Well, one of the things I've learned after over the last year is that apologizing or admitting guilt to ideologues is an unbelievably dangerous thing to do because all it's taken, as as Bruce basically alluded to, is a statement of guilt.

  • And, you know, the other problem from a psychological perspective is that and this this There's a very clear psychological literature on this.

  • So, you know, if you have a particular set of philosophical positions, let's say principals, let's call them and maybe your principles or something like excellence, meritocracy and honesty, which strikes me as a better set of principles for lawyers than diversity of equity and inclusiveness.

  • Not that those aren't, you know, in in certain contexts and carefully defined.

  • Also important.

  • If you write a statement of principle, especially one that's going to have to pass muster, then what will happen is you will bring your beliefs and your actions in line with that statement of principle.

  • You'll do that unconsciously, and there's a bunch of reasons for that.

  • And one reason is, is that you've now made a coherent and credible argument in favor of that set of principles, and you will find that convincing because articulating yourself in that matter actually changes your character, and the second is is that it puts you in into, ah position.

  • That's that's that's often being described as cognitive dissonance, which is one of the most famous findings in in psychology and cognitive dissonance is theon on pleasant feeling that you get when you're holding two opposing beliefs.

  • Let's say at the same time and you notice that, and so the cognitive dissonance here would be, Well, I'm just gonna write this statement of principles.

  • What difference does it make?

  • However, that is a statement of principles.

  • And so it's It's intrinsically dishonest and character damaging to craft a statement of principles with which you do not agree.

  • And so then you could either regard yourself as a coward and a liar.

  • Or you could bring your thinking in line with the statement of principles and that the ladder thing is what people tend to do.

  • And so and then the idea that this is just going to sit in some musty file drawer that's completely that's completely naive, in my estimation, because basically what's happening and I've seen this happening with the creep of ethics committees on university campuses is that once you decide that you're guilty and that you're going to abide by a new set of principles.

  • It now becomes incumbent on the law society as a matter of the intrinsic logic of the of the movement to do things like check you out on a year to year basis to see how your attitude and behavior is.

  • Uh, actually, in keeping with your statement of principles, it's not just gonna hang there in the air, it's gonna be enforced.

  • Yes, and that is part of the transition, I would say from the law.

  • Society regulating competence regulating values mean it used to be at one point that the law study was there to make sure that you had the skills to be able to practice law.

  • And as time is going on there, there overseeing is more and more in the area what it is that you sink and whether or not that thinking is appropriate.

  • And one good comparison of this is the case involving the Trinity Western boss.

  • Still, of the graduates of that lost causes a private school out in bridge, and they require all they're all their faculty and students to sign on to a pledge that contains certain values that promise not to do certain things like have premarital sex and, uh, all kinds of things the law society.

  • On the basis, I think that it is inappropriate for institution to impose values upon to people within it.

  • I've said that they will not license graduates from that law school now.

  • You might agree or disagree with that perspective, but it is hypocritical now that what they have done is the same thing.

  • Essentially except with a different set of aliens.

  • They have indeed imposed a set of values on the people within their own institution.

  • It's just that they have chosen different values, which means that their objection to turn your question was not really at all about the position of the values.

  • They just don't like the values that Attorney Western chose, right?

  • Yeah, it's pretty ironic that the argument would be made that an organization doesn't have the right to impose its values on it's on.

  • It's voluntary participants, which we should point out because you certainly don't have to go to Trinity Western or signing agreement.

  • There's lots of law schools you can go to where is in this particular situation?

  • You're basically, I mean to say that a gun is pointed to your head is too dramatic, obviously.

  • But it's no joke to be faced with with the threat of losing your license and also to have to undergo what would essentially be a bureaucratic inquisition and those air not pleasant, those air seriously.

  • Not pleasant if you if you fail to comply.

  • No.

  • And there's other.

  • There's other parts of boats before we need 20 Western.

  • We just underline what you just said, which I think is very important, which is that that the law society is essentially an arm of the state.

  • It has coercive power given to it by the state to license lawyers, and it is the gatekeeper, so you have no choice.

  • Whereas, as as you said Jordan, the association with Trinity westerns entirely voluntary.

  • If you don't want to go to that school, you don't go to that school.

  • And so it's It's ironic in the extreme that it is the law society, which is which has imposed such a requirement in circumstances that is much more objectionable than the attorney Western situation, their wallets, and it's quite it's quite disconcerting to me to say the least to see that it's actually lawyers that are doing this and that and that and that they're not capable of seeing or unwilling to see for some reasons that I don't really understand what that this is an egregious assault on the rights of of Well, I would say, of lawyers in Ontario, but also of individual citizens in Canada.

  • It's like the fact that it's lawyers that are involved in this is really I find that much more terrifying in some sense than the unfounded or likely unfounded accusation that the entire profession is racist, which also you don't know what are people who are to use the hated word racialized, which is also an ideological term, supposed to conclude if all the lawyers in Ontario just go along with this whole heartedly, they're really supposed to be able to go into a law firm and trust that their their claims are going to be put forward with with with with fairness and clarity and commitment.

  • If the whole society has already agreed and the lawyers go along with it, that it's intrinsically racist association, and how is that going to do anything but damage racial and and and sex related.

  • What would you call them?

  • Relationships in Canada?

  • I just can't see that is anything.

  • But, you know, it's supposed to be something that brings us together with regards to let's call it inclusiveness.

  • But I can't see this as anything other than something that's going to be extraordinarily divisive.

  • Well, interesting.

  • You were raising the issue of wire Lawyer's going along with it, or why aren't the recognizing the danger?

  • You know, there was some some talk about this at the complication meeting where these recommendations were passed.

  • There were some dissenting voices and very, very well put dissenting voices.

  • But, you know, just within my own professional network, most lawyers, I don't know what's going on.

  • They got the email.

  • They didn't think anything of it.

  • We get a 12 of these things a month.

  • It's just additional requirement.

  • Another piece of paper now.

  • Interesting.

  • What the Law Society has done when they push this requirement out is they also said, By the way, if you need some help completing this statement of Declan, a statement of principles we're gonna provide to templates that would satisfy us.

  • And, of course, 98% of the the lawyers that I practice with who are already time crunched.

  • What are they going to do?

  • They're gonna file either Template A or B get on with their life.

  • And and so it's one of those things where you've got time pressed lawyers.

  • Oh, our licensees.

  • And you've got a bureaucracy adding a new lead level of requirement to them.

  • And they're just going to Theo, go along to get along.

  • And from what I could tell, when I do stop people and asked them about their statement of principles, that's the first time they've actually thought about it.

  • Yeah, well, go ahead.

  • Breeze was going to say that the fact that it is the template you can choose between templates.

  • Yeah, that doesn't make it less of a concern.

  • It's actually more e don't want to overstate this, but this It has a lot of similarities to McCarthyism.

  • Yes, there's an old statement that, you know, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party that that was the template in the McCarthy era.

  • It's a template.

  • You have to say certain things and and look how meaningless it becomes in terms of actual substance.

  • If the template and you just fine on, then they have literally put words in your balance.

  • And that is the thing that cannot be allowed to happen.

  • Well, that I agree with that in a couple of ways.

  • I mean, the first thing is is that if they were committed to this in any deep sense, the last thing they would provide was a template, because the idea that you can, you could require from people a statement of principles that's of such fundamental import that if it is not crafted properly, you lose your license.

  • And yet that they could produce a template of principles that would have seen some manner apply to everyone equally is just It's absurd, almost beyond comprehension.

  • I mean, principles actually happen to be important, right?

  • From a psychological perspective, your deepest principles are the axioms from which you generate not only your thoughts and your actions, but your perceptions, your emotional responses and your motivations, like there's virtually nothing more important from the perspective of psychological integrity than your principles, and to think that those could be reduced to an externally produced template and that that could be imposed as a requirement, so it would be easier for you is It's like it reminds me of Soviet era where there were templates of guilt.

  • You know, if you were accused of something, regardless of whether you were guilty or not, because that really wasn't very relevant, you'd be required to sign a template of guilt essentially and that would well.

  • And once you've done that while you were done and so it's really quite, it's gritty, quite amazing that that from a conceptual philosophical perspective that that sort of thing could even be considered for a moment as as as acceptable.

  • And it seems to me to be a way of sliding it in under the door.

  • As Jared pointed out, People are busy and the other thing is, you know, when I made my first videos objecting to Bill See 16 last year, part of what motivated me was a comment by a colleague and about political correctness on campuses, he said.

  • Well, you know, the consequence of standing up against it from a personal perspective is extremely high and the probability that your opposition to it is going to have a broad scale, a social consequence is very low, and so the the logical thing to do, especially if you're pressed for time and and also if you want to not put your head up above the herd where it can be locked off is to a not notice because you're too busy and B because you're isolated as an individual.

  • In this circumstance, facing a large group theme, the easiest thing to do, especially when you're concerned with other things, is just to go along with it because you're isolated, right?

  • You don't know if there's other people who who who might be feeling uneasy about this, and there's no real way of telling well, particularly in our profession.

  • My understanding is that the majority of lawyers in the province of Ontario are generally practicing in a small firm environment or sole practitioners, and so you're going to have a lot of people standing on an island on their own in their own practice, and they're not gonna fully appreciate that.

  • This is an issue, what other people are thinking, and they're absolutely going to think that they're putting their head above the herd.

  • Eso it.

  • We have a unique I think we have a unique industry in that regard.

  • Well, let's just make it this point at this moment in time, which is that all those lawyers who think that they may be sticking their head up all by themselves are actually not because, you know, I I certainly heard from a good number of lawyers now who are all extremely concerned shop alarm at this so that one thing that we want to overcome is the possible inclination to think that that any lawyer who is concerned about this is an army of one and that in this situation is not the case.

  • So there are possibilities here that if people do act on their concerns and and, uh, decline to comply with this requirement that the change in this situation actually is a possibility.

  • Well, Bruce, there's also the people that were servicing.

  • I mean, in the private practice world, clients, clients are gonna watch this.

  • They want to know what we're doing.

  • I think they want their their lawyers to stand up on their principles, if you will, and push back against something.

  • And I think that there's something to be to be said in terms of your differentiation in the market place, particularly in private practice.

  • If you do exactly that, my clients were relying on me to be this bulwark against this type of thing.

  • And I think a lot of lawyers should should take note of that that there might be something here worth fighting for.

  • Yeah, I totally agree.

  • I mean, really, your lawyer credibility is at stake here.

  • If you can't stand up, protect yourself.

  • When your own fundamental rights are are being threatened, then why should clients believe you have the ability to do so on there?

  • Or the inclination to do so?

  • You know, because by swallowing this hook, line and sinker, let's say an exceeding two.

  • What's essentially an ideological demand?

  • Then you also brand yourself as an avatar of that particular ideology.

  • And so that's another reason to not be trusted.

  • You know that there's the aspect of inability to stand up for yourself or unwillingness to, but then the two to come out as a CZ an active agent for this, for this particular set of of Let's Call them principles, which, and there's absolutely no reason to make the assumption that the whole new Holy trinity of diversity equity and inclusiveness constitutes the highest order of moral value.

  • In fact, I think it's an extraordinarily weak argument that that's the case.

  • There's flaws in it at virtually every level of analysis.

  • It's old, and it's certainly runs contrary to the central themes of of, of English common law, for example.

  • So we make note just for a moment of the fact that the law society is playing that a little bit close to their chests in the sense that they have not spilled out what the penalty is going to be.

  • For those lawyers who declined to comply with its requirements, they've only said in their materials that those lawyers who are not in compliance will be advised of their obligations in writing, which, of course, leaves all the choices open to the law society.

  • And that was discussed to some extent, that the complication meeting there was concerns.

  • What happens?

  • What is the recourse here?

  • And I'm left to speculate.

  • But what your obligations are typically is to file what's called the Members Members annual report, of which this is going to be a component of it.

  • By not filling out a portion of your members annual report, I'm sure that you're going to face at a minimum what's called an administrative process, er, suspension, and it may even turn into something much larger than that.

  • So, I mean, I'm speculating, but absolutely the law society.

  • Do not make clear what's going to happen if if somebody decides that they don't want to, uh, go along to get along care well, that's also rather troublesome in and of itself, you know, because it's it's just not reasonable to to specify a requirement and then leave the penalty undefined.

  • And it smacks of political opportunism from my perspective, because it means that the law society hasn't put itself on the line with regards to the degree to which they're going to be draconian about this and then can incrementally introduced the penalties on a per person basis, which is where you would get the least amount of pushback, too, because you're a professional and then the board goes after you like it's a horrifying experience and especially, you know, if it puts your family livelihood, end your reputation online and it's very expensive to deal with and time consuming and trouble someone and anxiety provoking and all of those things So you have someone who's immediately put in a tremendous position of weakness in order to to, let's say, push back against this when the law society, it's all public as well.

  • So I mean the role of the law society from what I understand is to protect the public from the big bad lawyers.

  • That's why we're a self regulating industry.

  • And one of the things that the law society does is that it makes its disciplinary process public.

  • So things like administrative suspensions or or disciplinary action are things that would be known to the public.

  • So you're out there potentially being tarred and feathered on this thing, and people are gonna know.

  • Yeah, well, it's extremely important for a professional to maintain a pristine reputation and even the what would you call it?

  • Even the suggestion that you're known in accordance with even an administrative detail with regards to the law society is you can imagine that that's going to put doubt in the mind of anyone who Paul knows you or doesn't know you.

  • So that means the process is the punishment, and that's very much the case with these mid level organizations where it seems to me, that proclivity for amore totalitarian view of the world is like leaping forward in leaps and leaps and bounds.

  • So so should we consider for a moment what we might suggest to all those lawyers who are concerned about this and don't want to go along with former What is that?

  • What way wouldn't suggest that they do.

  • Jared, You want T o?

  • Well, it seems to me you approach that in your article, The National Post in a pretty adept away.

  • And and my first inclination is that Is that you don't file.

  • I mean, the act of filing in itself, as we've already discussed is is half of the admission of guilt, if you will, Andi.

  • I mean, I think that not filing since it sends a good a good statement.

  • But then you know you want to obviously let them know why you're not filing.

  • So perhaps you have to send something that would let them the law society, the regulator know why you're not filing.

  • I mean, those are the things that come to mind, and you you discuss them.

  • I think quite well, t two for them to realize that you didn't just forget you actually consciously decided that it wasn't the thing that you were going to do.

  • I think that's a very good idea.

  • Yes, some kind of short statement, but not mean.

  • I wouldn't be inclined to suggest that they should draft their own statement of principles.

  • That reflects what they actually think, because then they are actually going 3/4 of the way of what they've been asked to do.

  • I mean, there's no reason why, even if David says something that you believe that you should be filing it because it's still four speech, they're still requiring to make that statement.

  • So then it's not.

  • It's none of their business.

  • And and I mean, I thought about that myself.

  • I thought, Maybe you do, Ah, Google memo.

  • You know, Damore, Google memo.

  • But then I thought, No, you're playing the game.

  • You are You are declaring your thoughts to the regulator and I think that's reprehensible.

  • I agree that they don't have any right to the content of your thoughts, not unless you're willing to voluntarily put them forward, and that's definitely a difference.

  • Very big difference between all the assessment of confidence, which has already taken place after you've passed the bar and you're in compliance with the with the regulatory boards requirements, and the idea that they should have privileged access to your deepest principles is, I agree that's absolutely reprehensible.

  • There's no excuse for whatsoever whether you whether you agree with the principles they want, you'd agree with or not.

  • It's reprehensible.

  • Yes, Oh yes, Let's emphasize this port.

  • This is This is not essentially a debate about whether or not those values are good or bad, desirable or undesirable.

  • This is about the forced speech, first and foremost, but the idea that you could be required to indicate how you feel about them and you agree with them in endorsements, oil, even if you do agree with them and endorsed the idea that you must say so is just not on.

  • It crosses a line into a dark place that does not bode well for the future of freedom of speech in this country.

  • The rules go ahead with the rules of professional conduct, for lawyers, already have a rule that requires us to act, you know, in in accordance with the human rights code and principles of not to discriminate, I guess, is the word I'm using.

  • And so clearly our actions are already governed by a code of conduct and and by the legislation generally.

  • So for them to to request the statement of principles, it really is just asking you the way you think.

  • And so it's not like it's not like this is needed.

  • It's like This is the distinction between your obligation to comply with the law and to state that you agree with the law, which again going back to the Supreme Court of Canada is it is are two quite different things.

  • I think I read again what the Supreme Court said on this question.

  • Court says this, however admirable the objectives and provisions of the law.

  • Maybe no one is obliged to approve of him.

  • Anyone may criticize him and seek to have him amend it or repealed, although complying so long as there are in effect.

  • So this is not a question of other lawyers are subject to human rights code and anti discrimination laws.

  • That is, that is not the question here.

  • The question is whether or not you are required to endorse him and say that you agree, which is quite a different thing, the art, The other thing that disturbs me about this.

  • And I suppose this is a consequence of my experience with delving deeply into the history of places like the the Soviet Union in its early stages of development is that there's a class based guilt phenomena.

  • That's that's lead that's lurking at the bottom of this, too, which is also absolutely, I would say, terrifying.

  • So let's just say for a moment, although I don't believe this, that there is systemic racism among lawyers defined the way that this sort of thing is defined.

  • Um, but what this requirement employees is that every single lawyer of that group is now guilty of that phenomena, merely SB merely as a consequence of being a member of that class of people.

  • And, you know, there is something the idea of class based guilt is.

  • Well, first of all, it's the basis for racism itself, right?

  • So, But it's It's a terrifying proposition from the perspective of ah informed Western individual, because one of the bedrock, uh, presuppositions, let's call it a principle of our legal structure is that you're judged on your guilt or innocence as an individual, not as the member of the class.

  • And believe me, that is not a road we wanna walk down because there's, you know, each of us.

  • It might be the members of six or seven different classes.

  • And if you look into the history, let's say of those classes, whatever they are economic, professional, racial, gender based, whatever the probability that sometime in the past some members of our so called class did, things that were morally reprehensible or illegal is 100%.

  • And if we're going to be judged on the basis of the actions taken by people that we didn't even know merely because we happen to be vaguely associated with that group, then we're all guilty of all sorts of terrible things all the time.

  • And that puts us completely in the hands of people who want to make those guilt bait.

  • Those group guilt based accusations and that's that's a very, very bad It's almost impossible to overstress.

  • How bad an idea that iss Yes, absolutely.

  • I mean that there is no one that you can identify who in terms of group association and in terms of lineage as well.

  • I mean, this is also a casting the net back into history, deceived.

  • Know which group did wrong to which group.

  • But of course, there is no one who doesn't have somewhere in their ancestral lineage, you know, wrongs done by somebody related to to some other person.

  • And if if that is required, obviously criteria for guilt that you have said, then everybody is guilty and the whole thing starts becomes syrup.

  • Yes, well, when everyone's guilty, that means that the people who hold the right to punishment become all powerful.

  • Yes, really?

  • At least in Soviet Russia, they prime you up and torture you a bit before they had you swear your statement of principles or your confession, if you will.

  • So Okay, so here's another thing that I thought I might do is I'm going to put together anonymous list, um, so that lawyers who are willing to indicate their, um objections to this requirement can sign up.

  • In that way, I can tweet and also stay in contact with you guys on a regular basis.

  • How many signatories I've obtained and I won't make that public.

  • I'll make sure that it's not crack herbal, and that way it'll help people, uh, discover how many other people are also concerned about this and indicate to what degree there might be strength in numbers.

  • And so all set that up very carefully, and I'll put the link to that in the description of this video.

  • And so I guess we've decided on three potential modes of action.

  • And, uh uh, Jared's fundamental suggestion, if I remember correctly, was to not file the statement of principle and also write a letter indicating precisely why.

  • And I guess that would be.

  • I think it might be most effective if you filed a piece of paper as your statements, but don't make a statement.

  • Just say on the quote statement of principles that you object to filing a statement of principles or if they wish that suggested the column there more welcome.

  • Just just send in a copy of the column for the National Post.

  • Anything that anything that indicates that you're not doing this, you haven't just forgot.

  • But there is a piece of paper that is filed in place of what they've asked for, but it is not what they've asked for.

  • Okay, so that could be very straightforward.

  • That means that it wouldn't necessarily be very time consuming.

  • You could no time.

  • You could take the time to delineate why you're opposed to this or you accepting the column.

  • Or you could just state that you're opposed to this.

  • I don't think they should go to great lengths.

  • I think it's very simple.

  • I think they just say something like this is his fourth speech and I choose not to comply Orson to the column or something, Something that that stands for the proposition that I'm declining This request, it could be very short.

  • Does not have to be a full reasons Giant Jack.

  • Yeah, I object, just like most lawyers know how to do that.

  • If they've been in a courtroom.

  • Yes, exactly.

  • That's right.

  • It should be.

  • It should be something there quite accustomed to doing.

  • And so and then I'll put up this late for the list so that we can start to collect signatories and decide who and let people know how many people are.

  • Actually, let's call it philosophically and professionally opposed to this particular set of maneuvers.

  • And to be clear, we don't I don't want to know anybody's politics.

  • I don't want to know anything other than our the uncomfortable with the idea of being compelled to do something, to speak something, and I mean, that's that's important And there's gonna be a lot of people who are concerned about anonymity, and I fully respect that.

  • But But they need to know that there's people out there that are like mindedly objecting to this right now.

  • Now, one question that obviously comes up about this and I don't know, Garrett.

  • You want to speak to this, But I understand if there have been conversations between lots of various people about whether or not a legal action is a possibility on this, do you want to?

  • Just makes it very general.

  • Well, I think it's, I mean, this may come to a head, and I and I have had discussions with many people within my own professional network, and I'm trying to expand that network, and I've had a taste one person, very senior lawyer come forward and say I'm prepared to challenge this.

  • I'm prepared to be the person that takes the slings and arrows through a challenging process, and and I mean, I imagine it it would have to flow through the law society initially, but at some point you are entitled to judicial review of regulatory decisions so it would get pushed out into the general court system at some point.

  • But absolutely can.

  • If if, let's say what, There are people that are willing to go to the mat for this, and that's what I've been able to discern just within my own network.

  • Well, that's reassuring.

  • Well, that's the way lawyer should be.

  • We're supposed to be objectionable Army.

  • I will put that featured.

  • Two could get the good use.

  • Yes, well, that's exactly it, I would say from a temperamental perspective.

  • Lawyers are perfectly positioned to do that because they tend to be rather disagreeable and emotionally stable.

  • And so we do the rest of us, and I'm speaking as the member of another professional organization.

  • We depend on you guys to be the bulwark against any incursions into our essential rights.

  • And if you guys fold and and go along with this, then it's really not a good day for for the English common law, that's for sure.

  • And I think the English Common law is one of the most remarkable achievements of civilization of world civilisation.

  • It's an absolute gift and evolved legal system.

  • It works unbelievably well and to and to not object to serious challenges to it at a fundamental level means that we deserve whatever restrictions on our freedoms.

  • We accrue as a consequence of our cowardice.

  • And to let that happen when we're really just not paying attention would be the the the ultimate tragedy.

So today I'm talking to two of my compatriots, those in this ongoing discussion in Canada, a vote free speech issues including Compelled speech.

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

オンタリオ州の法律専門家のための反乱への呼び出し (A Call to Rebellion for Ontario Legal Professionals)

  • 0 0
    林宜悉 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語