Update: Law Society of Ontario Compelled Speech

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is challenging this in court: http://www.noforcedspeech.ca/

On October 10, Professor Bruce Pardy, Lawyer Jared Brown and I uploaded the video A Call to Rebellion for Ontario Legal Professionals: (http://bit.ly/2yo4Jpe) in the wake of the Law Society’s new requirement for a mandatory “statement of principles” that appears primarily political in nature. We believe that this sets an ominous precedent, and that such demands, if accepted unchallenged by Canadian lawyers, will quickly spread to the other professional colleges and organizations in Canada and beyond.

This video discussion is an update on what has happened since. Many articles have been written about these demands:

Lawless Society of Upper Canada

One’s Own Self, Like Water


Jonathan Kay: Law society’s inflated view of lawyers’ importance leads it to compel speech

Why I’m ignoring the Law Society’s Orwellian dictate: http://bit.ly/2zegpu7

Conrad Black: Law society confers capricious dictatorial powers on its own administration

Bruce Pardy: Law society’s new policy compels speech, crossing line that must not be crossed

Here is a summary of the relevant issues:

Recently, the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) has made major revisions to their requirements for the annual submission for legal practitioners in that province. As part of a five-part strategic program known as “Accelerating Culture Shift,” all lawyers are now required to write, submit and abide by a “Statement of Principles.” The details can be viewed here https://www.lsuc.on.ca/EDI/ — a site which indicates what lawyers now need to “KNOW AND DO” (caps in the original) for 2017.

The content of the now-mandatory “Statement of Principles” has been dictated and will be reviewed for compliance by the Law Society itself: Acknowledgement of the “obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in… behavior towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.” This is part of a broader claim by the same society of systemic racism endemic in the legal profession in Ontario – a claim for which very little credible evidence has been collected and distributed.

Furthermore, the Society now requires every legal workplace of 10 or more licensees to “develop, implement and maintain a human rights/diversity policy” and to undergo an “equality, diversity and inclusion self-assessment for their legal workplace, to be provided to the Law Society” (which will also “encourage legal workplaces to conduct inclusion surveys by providing them with sample templates.”)

Failure to do comply brings with it the threat of serious penalties, including reputational damage and, more seriously, loss of the right to practice.

By implementing such requirements the Law Society has shifted from an organization ensuring competent practice to one dedicated to policing political and philosophical attitude and behavior. This is a clear and egregious example of compelled speech, and should be rejected as unacceptable by those at whom it is aimed.

To indicate your objections, once again (lawyers only, please, for this purpose): http://bit.ly/2xuZKOj

Confidentiality is ensured.

Jared Brown’s website and email:


(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)

You might be interested in

Comment (22)

  1. Interesting historical side note. John Adams (not to be confused with Sam Adams:) ), was a lawyer. When the oppression of his people became too great, he became a leader in a revolution against tyranny. He prevailed in that conflict and helped to found a free nation, one that installed essential human rights upon its people, to include freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. John Adams later became one of the finest Presidents America has ever had. Quite simply, John Adams is awesome:)

  2. I still say we have to turn off the spigot by suing the hell out of these schools for teaching communist doctrine, and their out and out bigotry and hate against white men, and the western world. That is the source.

  3. The soundcloud app has an introduction of a piano piece being played for about 30 seconds and i'd love to know the name if it is an excerpt from a classic. Please if anyone knows i'd greatly appreciate.

  4. If you control the law, you control the courts. If you control the courts, you control everything. I hope my fellow Canadians wake up and realize what's going on because we are on a path that has a terrifying ending.

  5. Just for anyone interested, this is already fully in force in almost all public services throughout the UK. This includes the Police as well as all working in the medical sector, which is almost entirely run by the state.
    We all have to undergo "Equality and Diversity" re-education. All public sector employees that I'm aware of, as well as many private employees are obliged to undertake it.
    What the situation is in the legal profession I don't know, but given the judgements being laid down throughout the UK which essentially forgive Muslims and Asians for crimes of rape, paedophilia, assault and corruption that white people are having their lives destroyed over, I would say that we are actually much further down the road than Canada.

    The Western USSR is already well upon us. We've sleep-walked into it; now we need to fight the battles ahead, not those already passed.

  6. “I'm White, whatever that means”… Yeah, I don't know either. All three of you are ethnic-European (or just, European, shortly) from what I can see. These simple Crayola-crayon descriptions of race (ethnicity), which border onto being pejorative, need to stop.

  7. This thing basically is the 'progressive' version of a religious declaration of faith.
    How far has civil society fallen when it becomes required to be a 'progressive' to keep one's job, just like it was required a couple of centuries past to be a Christian (either catholic or protestant depending on the western country) to have any official status.
    This is why 'progressive' really means 'regressive.'

  8. As a lawyer, I have to question the legal competence of Benchers who did not give consideration to defined scope of the authority of the Law Society. It is not the legislatively defined function of the Law Society to align its members behind any particular political position. In fact, it is essential to proper functioning of the legal profession that members hold a diverse range of political views, consistent with the diverse range of views held by the public who may be in need of their representation. I don't think it could be any clearer that the Law Society is exceeding its legal authority to regulate the profession by delving into matters which are not relevant to improving the quality of legal services made available to the public, and in fact may denigrate the quality of those services for clients. If there are Benchers who do not understand these principles, they should be removed from Convocation at the very least.

  9. Why doesn't that lawyer guy take this to the courts to fight it? or is that the plan? These guys seem to be uniquely situated to actually do something about this. Or is that the plan here? And since this stems from the C17 mess, they can start to take it all apart in the courts if they can make a win or two. Just make sure they jump in front of the cameras and publicize it properly.

  10. The purpose of this is to not for the LSUC to police conduct. While still obviously patently unconstitutional under compelled speech doctrines, the requirement that one merely profess a belief in something does not translate to a requirement that one act in such a manner consistent with that professed belief in order to continue to be licensed. One may simply make and sign the requisite declaration, then toss it into a locked compartment of their desk and continue on as if nothing was happening. The LSUC does not have the requisite legal authority to police conduct outside the purview of their mandate – at least, not for now.

    The purpose of this is to identify wrongthinkers and troublemakers. The impetus of this requirement was a review which declared that the Canadian law profession was infested with "systemic racism". That one of their recommendations was this compelled speech requirement tells you all you need to know about who did the review and how they came to that determination; there was no adequate scientific measurement of racism via a review of a random sampling of cases which were then subsequently found to be discriminatory in some respect. No, the problem was the law profession was not sufficiently stacked with goodthinkers who adhered to SJW orthodoxy. Once wrongthinkers have been identified, either publicly for speaking out, or privately for refusing the requirement, indoctrinated agents within the organizational hierarchy of both the lawyers firm and the LSUC will know who their enemies are.

    SJW orthodoxy in academia is designed to produce a cohort of activists first through alarmism, i.e. with moral outrage and panic at some perceived evil that is causing widespread harm; followed by indoctrination in SJW orthodoxy of thought, speech, and action as a solution to the problem; followed by a call to action to spread this orthodoxy of thought, speech, and action as far and as wide as possible. What is particularly insidious is that those who stand in the way of this spreading of orthodoxy are itself the aforementioned identified evil; once a potential victim is ensnared by the alarmism, SJW propaganda quickly equivocates away from any identifiable, objective harm and towards vilifying those who stand in their way as if they were the cause of the problem. That is, SJW orthodoxy, propaganda, and activism training does not teach SJWs how to erradicate racism or sexism in an organization but rather to eradicate any individual standing in the way of SJW orthodoxy, in the belief that once all wrongthinkers have been purged from an institution the problem will have either solved itself already, or at least is rapidly approaching a solution in the near future (this is also why SJWs turn on each other so easily; when the problem isn't resolved, the solution is of course more purging).

    Which is why they are very interested to know if anyone in an organization opposes their orthodoxy; they are the target that must be purged via any means necessary. The distinction here is that they aren't particularly interested in using the proper channels of the institution to enact their purge, like disbarring a lawyer – they will once they've seized sufficient amounts of power, e.g. Damore from Google, but they don't have to. Merely knowing who their enemies, allies, and sympathetic neutrals in an organization are is enough to start building cabals. This new compelled speech requirement is merely an avenue for virtue signaling; but virtue signaling is not only a method for individual SJWs to feel good but also for the collective as a whole to gauge how much influence and power they've seized in an organization.

    If a workplace boss insists on his right in the workplace to refer to his pretty young female assistant as "Hot Lips" or "Honey Buns" rather than by her proper name or job title, or by normal pronouns, that woman could file sexual harassment charges against that boss and would prevail, resulting in the man being either compelled into changing his speech to speech patterns that are approved by the Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws, or being fired. So, are not all Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws (applicable to all workplace settings) in reality a form of government "compelled speech" as Dr. Jordan Peterson defines "compelled speech"? So, does Dr. Jordan Peterson disapprove of the existence of Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws? Or does he believe those laws are in need of being reformed to permit a greater latitude of freedom of speech? Given the unprecedented huge wave of Sexual Harassment stories in the news recently, I would really like to hear Dr. Jordan Peterson articulate his views on Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws, particularly on how those laws may function as government-enforced "compelled speech." Thank you.

  12. " a human rights diversity policy" oh, right, there are too many white men being lawyers, so a bunch of people must be fired and some others who are in the right group will be hired instead. Oh yeah, and they must also agree to be progressives and follow the progressive philosophy. Meritocracy? pfffff who needs that. As for "I don't know what inclusion means" let me spell it out to you.. the black or woman or tranny is right, and you are wrong, and that's your lot.

  13. The Agenda with Steve Paikin had a panel talking about this yesterday. Two lawyers were skeptical and three thought it was a great way to deal with systemic racism. Rather than deal with actual cases of racism the Society is taking the lazy way of just making everyone sign and comply.

  14. From the European Union to Canada, the USA, and Australia, faceless people are changing the way we live, think, behave through pure fear.
    We need as individuals to get over the fear of a word orwords or we will very soon be controlled in a Marxist world living the kind of utopia, tried and tested and failed miserably numerous times in our histories.
    I fear for my descendants.
    A 70-year-old English woman

  15. I am not a lawyer, I do not belong to any organization at this time. I will be sending a hand-written letter to the Law Society of Upper Canada and sending them an e-mail with my objections. I encourage others to make their voices heard by doing both, especially because there is something harder to ignore about a written letter vs just an e-mail which can be dismissed (as I'm sure we've all done). By liking the video and posting a comment you show your support for the creators and parties involved. But by sending the LSUC your voiced complaint, you will explicitly demonstrate your objections to this new requirement which is what needs to be done to avoid these abhorrent measures from further snowballing out of control. Thank you Jordan Peterson, Bruce Pardy, Jared Brown, and everyone who supports them for your time and efforts in moving humanity forward.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *