so today I'm talking to two of my
compatriots I suppose in this ongoing
discussion in Canada about free speech
issues including compelled speech and I
met Jared brown and Bruce party
Jared's a practicing lawyer and Bruce is
a 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 C 16 which we
all regarded as a piece of legislation
that was infringing on the rights to
free speech of Canadian individuals in a
manner that hadn't been 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
been talking about the three of us have
been talking about that we regard as a
another but far more egregious example
of compelled speech so I'm going to let
Jared introduce himself and say a little
bit about who he is
he testified with me at the Canadian
Senate last year and Bruce party also
testified at the Senate on Bill c16 and
Bruce was also the lawyer that I debated
he played devil's advocate at Queen's
University of some of you watching this
will be familiar with that video so
Jared oh let you introduce yourself and
then Bruce and then Bruce Bruce recently
wrote a column for the now she will post
on this new requirement by the Law
Society and so we're going to let him
begin the discussion proper on to you
Jared I'm an everyday litigator I'm a
commercial litigator in Toronto I've
been practicing for about 15 years doing
increasingly more and more human race
tribunal work things like that and
obviously stepped into the breach on c16
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 Canadian 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 have taken up
the fight of people Bruce thanks for
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 emails 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 but before I was but but like
many other lawyers in the province this
is was the first indication that this
new requirement existed and essentially
the email said but one of the things
that said amongst others was that every
licensed lawyer now is required to draft
and submit what they are calling a
statement of principles and that
statement is 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 the screen as a radius example of
forced speech of 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 that
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 also
want to do this this is a condition of
your ability to practice law in the
province of Ontario so this destruct me
as a matter that needed to be a
publicly I needed to be discussed
amongst lawyers in the province because
this is a a slow march to a dark place I
think and that's where it all began
yeah well it was concerning to me when I
encountered this I mean I'm the member
of a college as well a college of
psychologists and my sense of this is
that if the lawyers fall stand 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 well as
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 and by having the lawyers through
under the guise of their regulatory body
being compelled to speak or or share
opinions 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 c16 is a
particularly nefarious infringement and
intrusion yeah well I mean it's one
thing to put restrictions on what people
can say I mean I know you can't insight
someone to crime for example but it's a
completely different thing to require
people to espouse a particular political
stance especially when when it's being
reviewed by what's essentially an
arbitrary committee and and when the
punishment is socha as draconian as us
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 and so let's let's just
emphasize at this point the distinction
between restrictions on speech which
which are not good things and hour
debatable and so on but this is a
category impression this is compelled
speech this is a requirement that makes
you say something you may not agree with
and as I mentioned it'll be in the
column a statements from the Supreme
Court of Canada and maybe I'll just read
out one of those just just to make the
point because even the court has said
explicitly that that this is this is not
on in a in a free society you're here
the words of the Supreme Court forcing
someone to express opinions that they do
not have is to Tala terian and as such
alien 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 yeah that was
sorry Jordan that was that was the
cornerstone of not only the opinion
piece that I I put up on my website
about c16 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 and ideas that may not be your
own and the government is forcing you 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 so Jared wouldn't 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 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 law people who are
practicing law in Ontario are
essentially racist in their orientation
which is why this this racist and
perhaps misogynist as well which is why
this piece of administrative let's call
it law or requirements has come into
practice but it isn't obvious that their
own data support that conclusion I mean
you can easily read what they wrote as
pretty providing pretty compelling
evidence that the legal profession the
demographics of
legal profession for what that's worth
you are transforming quite rapidly and
so the the thing that concerned 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 as their by convicting
themselves like they're they're guilty
to begin with they and they don't have
an opportunity to prove their innocence
and by by going along with these
requirements they're basically admitting
through their action that the
accusations that are being thrown at
them both individually and as a
collective are are not only accurate but
require immediate remediation yeah well
I mean the the Rekha or the requirement
that's being rolled out right now is the
result of a I think it's about a 58 page
report that had 13 recommendations that
were passed by convocation which is the
governing body of the Law Society and
the report itself was entitled
strategies to address issues of systemic
racism I mean that statement on its own
is saying that our industry as well as
the law society organization itself is
systemically racist and and clearly
that's a to me I'm you know it's a very
bold statement and one that I think
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 and you know there is a
body of data that they've produced as
well as some qualitative anecdotal
stories as to some of the the issues
that are being faced by by what they
call racialized licensees I mean the
data is something that a lot of people
aren't going to look at but I do
encourage people to look at it and and
see what what the basis on that finding
that we're a systemic ly racist industry
and an 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 it there's there's a lot of shocking
information in there and there's
obviously some shocking findings but ya
know it's it's got me concerned because
my my industry has now been deemed
racist by the body that governs it yeah
one of the things that's really
appalling about that and 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 the 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
anything 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 data shows and in many
respects this actually not what this
data shows so I take your point about
the methodology but but even so even if
you accept that methodology it's not
crystal clear that that's what the
numbers actually suggest when I get back
for a moment to your to your implication
point I mean I agree that that the
requirement to make this statement in
this context essentially could be
interpreted as though you are 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 as an individual and there
is also the the trouble that once you
have written the statement so as to
comply with the requirement then you
have on the record a statement of what
it is that you believe and thereafter
your future actions can be compared to
that statement so as to show that you
are not acting in 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 some I've
heard some lawyers say in response to
this requirement that oh well so this is
not a big deal because I'm just gonna
write the statement they'll put it in
the file
and sit in some corner of the law
society computer and who cares it's no
big deal
but it actually it is a very big deal
because there they are hurting you
towards both a certain way to think a
certain way to express yourself and 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 right but
also you're subscribing to this idea
that the system is racist that the that
the industry and 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 an issue here
and 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 and a declaration and what
that means but I just find that you know
having to affirm in a statement that our
industry is is hopelessly corrupt is
it's not something I'm willing to do at
this point well over the last year is
that apologizing or admitting guilt to
ideologue this 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 know
if you have a particular
set of philosophical positions let's say
principles let's call them and maybe
your principles are something like
excellence meritocracy and honesty which
strike me as a better set of principles
for lawyers than diversity and equity
and inclusiveness not that those aren't
you know in in certain context 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 manner
actually changes your character and the
second is is that it puts you in into a
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 the unpleasant 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 and
character damaging to craft a statement
of principles with which you do not
agree and so then you can either regard
yourself as a coward and a liar or you
can bring your thinking in line with the
statement of principles and that if the
latter thing is what people tend to do
and so and then the idea that this is
just gonna 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 the 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
your basis to see how your attitude and
behavior is actually in keeping with
your statement of principles it's not
just gonna hang there in the air it's
gonna be in the forest yes and that is
part of the transition I would say from
the Law Society regulating competence
regulating values I 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 has gone on they're there they're
overseeing is more and more in the area
of what it is that you think and whether
or not that thinking is appropriate and
one good comparison of this is the the
case involving the Trinity Western law
school the the graduates of that laws
because it is a private let's go out in
virtue and they require all their all
their faculty and students to sign on to
a pledge that contains certain values
they promise not to do certain things
like have premarital sex and all kinds
of other things the Law Society on the
basis I think that it is inappropriate
for an institution to impose values upon
to people within it have 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 the
different set of values they have indeed
impose a sentence on the people within
their own institution it's just that
they haven't chosen different values
which means that their objection to turn
your question was not really at all
about the imposition of the values they
just don't like the values the attorney
Western chose right yeah well it's
pretty ironic that the argument would be
made that an organization doesn't have
the right to impose its values on its
own it's voluntary participants which we
should point out because you certainly
don't have to go to Trinity Western or
signers agreement there's lots of law
schools you can go to whereas 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 it with
the threat of losing your license and
also to have to undergo what would
essentially be a bureaucratic
Inquisition and those are not pleasant
those are seriously not pleasant if you
if you fail to comply no one there's
other there's other parts of us before
we leave turn your weapon can 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
during the the association with Trinity
Western it's entirely voluntary if you
don't want to go to that school you
don't know that school and so it's it's
it's it's ironic in the extreme that it
is the law Society which is that which
has imposed such a requirement in
circumstances that is much more
objectionable than the Trinity Western
situation
yeah well it's 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 have that and
that and that they are 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 well I would say of
lawyers in Ontario but also of the
individual citizens in Canada it's like
that the fact that the 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 are also you
know now 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 wholeheartedly 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
physically racist Association and how is
that going to do anything but damage
racial and and sex related what would
you call the relationships in Canada I
just can't see that as anything but you
know it's supposed to be something that
brings us together in with regards to
let's call it inclusiveness but I can't
see this is anything other than
something that's going to be
extraordinarily divisive well yeah
interesting you were you were raising
the issue of wire lawyers going along
with it or why aren't they recognizing
the danger you know there was some some
talk about this at the convocation
meeting where 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 don't know what's going on
they got the email they didn't think
anything of it we get a you know twelve
of these things a month it's just an
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 decorative principles
we're gonna provide two templates that
would satisfy us and of course
ninety-eight percent of the the lawyers
that I practice with who are RT time
crunched what are they gonna 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 or licensees and you've
got a bureaucracy adding a new level of
requirement to them and they're just
going to to go along to get along and
from what I can tell when I do stop
people and ask them about their
statement of principles that's the first
time they've actually thought about it
yeah go ahead Bruce no I wasn't going to
say that the fact that is the template
that you can choose between you own up
to the templates yeah that doesn't make
it less of a concern it's actually more
do you mean I don't want to overstate
this but this is it has a lot of
similarities to McCarthyism yes does 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 this is the
template you have to say certain things
and and look
how meaningless it becomes in terms of
actual substance if it's a templated you
just died on then they have literally
put words in your mouth and that is the
thing that cannot be a lot of it happen
yeah 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 see
in 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 the 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
well you were done and so it's really
quite it's pretty quite amazing that
that from a conceptual philosophical
perspective that that sort of thing
could even be considered for a moment as
as acceptable and it seems to me to be a
way of sliding it in under the door and
as Jared pointed out people are busy and
the other thing is you know when I made
my first videos objecting to Bill c16
last year part of what motivated me was
a comment by a colleague and about
political correctness on campuses and 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 lopped off is to a not notice because
you're too busy and be because you're
isolated as an individual in this
circumstance facing a large group 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 welcomed
sick you'll early 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 going
to 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 so it's 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
have certainly heard from a good number
of lawyers now who are all extremely
concerned shocked alarmed at this so the
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 that there
there are possibilities here that if if
people do act upon their concerns and
and the time to comply with this
requirement that the change in this
situation actually is a possibility well
Bruce there's also the the the people
that that were servicing I mean in the
private practice world clients clients
are going to 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
marketplace 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
your lawyer credibility is at stake here
you can't stand up and protect yourself
when your own fundamental rights are are
being threatened then why should clients
believe you have the ability to do so on
on their back or the inclination to do
so you know because by swallowing this
hook line and sinker let's say and
exceeding to 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 to to come out as an active agent
for this for this particular set of of
let's call them principles which and and
there's absolutely no reason to make the
assumption that the whole the new Holy
Trinity of diversity equity and
inclusiveness constitutes the highest
order of moral value it's in fact I
think it's an extraordinarily weak
argument that that's the case there's
there's flaws in it at virtually every
level of analysis it's old and it's
contrary to the central themes of
English common law for example so we
make note just for a moment of the the
fact that the law society is playing
that a little bit closer to their chests
in the sense that they have not spelled
out what the penalty is going to be for
those lawyers who decline to to comply
with this requirement they have only
said in their materials that those
lawyers who are not a compliance will be
advised of their obligations in writing
which of course leaves all the choices
open to the law society musical
and that was discussed to some extent at
the convocation meeting there was
concerns what happens what is the
recourse here and and I I'm left to
speculate but what your obligations are
typically is to file what's called the
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 a minimum what's called an
administrative processor suspension and
it may even turn into something much
larger than that so I mean I'm
speculating but absolutely the Law
Society did not make clear what's going
to happen if if somebody decides that
they don't want to 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 introduce the penalties on
a per person basis which is where you
would get the least amount of pushback
to because if you're a professional and
then the board goes after you like it's
a horrifying experience and especially
you know it puts your family livelihood
and your reputation online and it's very
expensive to deal with and
time-consuming and troublesome and 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 so in the law
society it's all public as well so I
mean the the role of the law society
from what I understand is to protect the
public from the big bad lawyers that's
why we are a self-regulating industry
and one of the things that that the Law
Society does is it how 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
going to 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
not
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 organisations
where it seems to me the proclivity for
a more totalitarian view of the world is
like leaping forward in leaps and in
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 the
requirement what it is that what we
wouldn't suggest that they do
jarick you wanted to take off well it
seems to be you approach that in your
article to National Post in a pretty
adaptive way and that 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 and I
mean I think that not filing sense it
sends a good 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 to 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 it I mean I wouldn't be inclined
to suggest that they should draft their
own statement of principles that reflect
what they actually think because then
they are actually going three-quarters
of the way of what they've been asked to
do I mean there's no reason why even if
the statement says something that you
believe that you should be filing it
because it's still forced speech they're
still requiring to make that statement
so and yes and it's not it's none of
their business and and I mean I thought
about that myself I thought maybe you'd
do a google memo you know the more
google memo but then I thought no you're
playing the game you are you are
declaring your thoughts to to the
regulator and I think that's
reprehensible yeah
I agree 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 a very big difference between
well the assessment of confidence which
has already taken place after you've
passed the bar and you're in compliance
with 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 it whatsoever whether you
whether you agree with the principles
they want you to agree with or not it's
reprehensible yes oh yes sighs this
point this is this is not essentially a
debate about whether or not those values
are are good or bad desirable or
undesirable this is about the force
speech first and foremost but the idea
that you can be required to indicate how
you feel about them and you look rivas
them in endorsing and so on even if you
do agree with them and endorse them the
idea that you must say so it is is just
not on it it crosses a line into a dark
place that does not bode well for the
future or freedom of speech in this
country yes go ahead win so who is the
professional conduct for lawyers already
have a rule that requires us to act you
know in in accordance with the Human
Rights Code and 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
to the way you think and so it's not
like it's not like this is needed it's
like it's 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 there are two quite different
things I think and I read again what the
Supreme Court said on this question
Supreme Court says this however
admirable the objectives and provisions
of the law maybe no one is obliged to
approve of them anyone may criticize
them and seek to have them amended or
repealed
although complying with them so long as
there are ineffective so this is not a
question of whether 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 them and say that you agree
which is quite a different thing yeah
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
Soviet Union in its early stages of
development is that there's a
class-based guilt phenomena that's
that's that's lurking at the bottom of
this to 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 but what this requirement
implies is that every single lawyer of
that group is now guilty of that
phenomena merely as being 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 a informed Western
individual because one of the bedrock
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 a
class and believe me that is not a road
we want to 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
our economic professional racial
gender-based whatever the probability
that some time in the past some members
of our so-called class did things that
were morally reprehensible or illegal is
100 percent yes 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 over stress how bad an
idea that is yes absolutely I mean that
there there is no one that that you can
identify who in terms of group
association and in terms of of lineage
as well I mean this is also a casting
than that back into history deceived
know which group did wrong to to which
group but of course there there is no on
who doesn't have somewhere in there
ancestral and age you know wrongs done
by somebody you're related to to some
other person and if that is right
Hartley's the criteria for guilt that
you have said then everybody is guilty
and the whole thing starts to become
silver yes everyone's guilty that means
that the people who hold the right to
punishment become all-powerful yes at
least in Soviet Russia they they prime
you up and torture you a bit before they
had you swear your statement of
principles or your confession if you
will I thought I might do is I'm going
to put together an anonymous list so
that lawyers who are willing to indicate
their objections to this requirement can
sign up and 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 crackable
and that way it'll help people
discover how many other people are also
concerned about this and indicate to
what degree there might be strength in
numbers and so I'll 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 Jarrod'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 file the piece of paper as your
statements but don't make it a
statements just say on the statement of
principles that you object to filing a
statement of principles or if they show
that suggested in the column they're
more than welcome to send in a copy of
the column from the National Post
anything that anything that indicates
that you're not doing this you haven't
just forgotten 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 can be
very straightforward that means that it
wouldn't necessarily be very
time-consuming you could you could take
the time to delineate why you're opposed
to this or yes or you could just state
that you're opposed to this yeah I don't
think they should go to great lengths if
it's very simple if they just say
something like this is for speech and I
choose not to comply or send in the
column or something something that that
stands for the proposition that I'm
declining this request they can be very
sure it does not have to be a full
reasoned giant object yeah most lawyers
know how to do that if they've been in a
courtroom yes that's right it should be
it should be something they're 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
her 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
going to be a lot of people who are
concerned about anonymity and I I fully
respect that but but they need to know
that there is people out there that are
like-minded ly objecting to this right
now that obviously come talk about this
and I don't know Jared you want to speak
to this but I understand if there have
been conversations between lots of
various people about whether or not a
lethal action is a possibility on this
you if you want to just make some very
general well I think it's I mean that
this may come to a head and I and I have
had discussions with with many people
within my own professional network and
I'm trying to expand that network and
I've had at least 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 would have to flow
through the Law Society initially but at
some point you are entitled to to
judicial review of regulatory decisions
so it would get pushed out into the the
general court system at some point but
absolutely it can if if let's say what
there are people that are willing to 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 as
well put that feature to good good the
good news 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
which common-law that's for sure and I
think the English common law is one of
the most remarkable achievements of
civilization of world civilization it's
an absolute gift and evolved legal
system it works unbelievably well and to
and to not object to serious challenges
at 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 ultimate
tragedy