Update: Law Society of Ontario Compelled Speech

[@JordanBPeterson]

The video has audio sync issues (although the audio quality is good). There was no fixing it. But it's an important issue, and the content is there. Canadians have to wake up to this.

[@NitroReviewsMN]

Thank you Dr. Peterson... as long as we can hear you and the guys that's all I need

[@Sourdoughgirl]

I usually download your videos as MP3 so the syncing problem won't bother me at all. Thank you for your good work.

[@slappy8941]

A lynch mob is in order.

[@MW-nOttawa]

We need a NEW law society and I'm volunteering to help organize it.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

Anyone who really cares about the message will deal with the technical issues.

[@itchykami]

You can comply or not with this rule, it still plays into their hands. Noncompliance will be your scarlet letter. Compliance is their coronation. This has nothing to do with human rights. This is to remove the disobedient. This is to claim power.

[@OchoVera]

I'm not Canadian, But I'm glad there are good intelligent people spear heading this, because if you fall, we all fall.

[@jupiter998]

Not sure we all fall.....but would be in for a bloody hard time :)

[@BearbearbearbearbearbearRarrrr]

These aren’t people being very intelligent. Check again.

[@Perssonp]

I didn't now about this law. My jaw dropped to the floor when I read your description and listening to you talk. It's absolutely bizarre. Thanks for your hard work to promote free speech. I happily support your work thru patreon. I usually hate to listen to seminars and panels, but you just blow my mind every time I listen to you. Greetings from Sweden 🇸🇪

[@garetclaborn]

ya ;/ it is a dark moment in western legal history

[@scottmoyer3854]

Thank you, gentlemen, for not rolling over on this. In the states, there's a reason the 1st Ammendment is the FIRST one!

[@nonameisopen]

And the reason the 1st is and shall always be 1st is thanks to the 2nd Amendment. A more perfect defense against tyranny and despotism has yet to be discovered, without free expression truth will be suppressed but without the ability to fight back free expression will be suppressed. When the government fears it's citizens is when the people are most free. Canada does not seem to fear the Canadian people, perhaps Canadians ought to change that.

[@ElBlancoPapi]

Yep....and a good reason the 2nd one is the very next one. The 2nd one protects and ensures the 1st one, which is most important!!

[@stochastic24]

woooooo guns!

[@MrTheGuitarNerd]

Good luck fighting apache attack helicopters, UAV's armed with hellfire missiles, fifth generation fighter jets and tanks firing heavy artiliery...... with uncle Mike's glock and your hunting rifle. Seriously though, I hope you don't ever find yourself in that situation, but that always seemed like a silly argument for gun ownership to me. Can you imagine anyone fighting the U.S. army? Actually, never mind the massive resources of the army, would the populace even have a chance against the now incredibly militarized police?

[@josedude9812]

MrTheGuitarNerd At first glance silly. At second glance, no. Its a wary acknowledgement that citizen's are very well armed, and if you piss them off enough they will square on you. We saw this in the 2014 rancher stand off in Arizona. The government backed down, not because they couldn't win, but because they were loathe to slaughter rebellious armed citizens. Those cops shop at the same grocery store as the ranchers did. Civil wars don't start with grandpa shooting at an apache gunship. If the government faced a real insurrection, (Like say the left obviously assassinated the president) they would have to fight town by town. The army would split, and there could be a full scale civil war. The army is made up of citizens also. Soldiers would be forced to choose. Armed citizens means: government decisions are made with that knowledge always in the back of the mind. If no citizens are armed, and the government can simply march 20 local policemen in to shut any and everything down; governments will become contemptuous. (You see some of that contempt in Spain right now.) PS I'm retired law enforcement. Our cops may look all militarized, however everything they carry is designed to fight and win a 5 minute gunfight. You put them in a 4 hour battle, they would be in deep trouble.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

It's nice to see lawyers stand up to this stuff. It's one thing when academic professors stand up for these beliefs, but it's also important to have the people who more directly work with policy and legislation take a stance too.

[@mkrump9403]

Lawyers against a minority of stupid lawyers www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/19/law-society-report-proposes-changes-to-combat-systemic-racism.html Just imagine: as a Canadian lawyer how can you go against the Canadian chart of liberty. If they are excluding someone it goes against this chart.... Right away. No need to re-read the law to modified the Canadian Chart of liberty.

[@desmisc9911]

This is why I financially support Professor Peterson. Professor Saad, please get on this bandwagon.

[@kennyg1358]

The west is like an ancient towering oak tree. Some of It's modern caretakers see the large structural roots as obstacles that cause stumbles. Also as a source of discomfort while reclining in the great trees shade. Saws and axes are hard at work.

[@rubbishopinions6468]

Don't mind me, just going to steal that great analogy.

[@imacashew.]

I agree dude that was poetic

[@radagast7200]

The giving tree can't give forever.

[@supercrusader1655]

I practice law in Ontario.......I am never submitting to this. The degree of INDIFFERENCE I am detecting from fellow practitioners is a bit disturbing..

[@mkrump9403]

Yeah because that is pretty dark and it was spotted right away by open human and social searcher... There is kind of subversive forces occurs here. Fun fact they will challenge the Canadian rights and will fail. But that their strength to spot weak spot inside the limit Canadian rights. These fake laws group will have to face the light... be ready to fight them if you are in this law`s practice field. (I am a french Canadian, my English can slide wrong.)

[@tokra1000]

Jesus Christ that is a Kafka trap and a half! It’s totally optional to sign this statement of sentiments where you acknowledge you are guilty of perceived injustice. However if you don’t sign it we KNOW your guilty of it.

[@acrossway1982]

Anthony Bailey This is the Liberal mentality.

[@pseudopetrus]

When I went to the Law Society of Upper Canada web page and freaked out at the bullet point "Accelerating culture shift". Who decides what cultural shift needs to be accelerated? I can understand that culture is always in a state of flux and that is natural, but to mess with culture in an unnatural or political way is a recipe for disaster.

[@pseudopetrus]

pinochet pilot # 666 Change just for the sake of change can be a dangerous thing. Sure change, at times is good, but not when it risks a good thing!

[@jcmick8430]

The Long March has been gaining momentum!

[@garetclaborn]

Apparently the Law Society of Upper Canada decides what cultural shift needs to be accelerated, and they decided to accelerate culture right off a cliff

[@pseudopetrus]

I am worried about the cultural shift away from individual achievement, that people not properly equipped to do so, become leaders or hold important positions. The flip side is that collective effort is very powerful and could be both good and bad. But even that must come down to individual responsibility.

[@claremchugh5005]

Thank you gentleman, This was really difficult to hear . I did find myself pausing and engaging in diversionary busy work in avoidance . To allow myself to feel defeat and curl up in a ball is there . I feel like the cowardly , fearful lion . I've decided that's not acceptable for me . Surprise , surprise , you help me discover my courage . Thank you .

[@motherposture]

This is Black Mirror Season 4

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

Dude, just imagine if Charlie Brooker is a fan of Lord Bucko himself

[@motherposture]

Kojima World Order yeah - he follows Canadian Politics for source material.

[@conrad1on]

+Kojima World Order Charlie Brooker is friends with Matt Lees, so I doubt it, sadly.

[@willhelmberkly3025]

This is a quote from Jennifer Quito, an advocate of the measure, and I feel that it clearly depicts the contempt that she has for the right for individual expression. " Third, the statement does not violate the Charter right to freedom of expression. But if it did, it would nonetheless comprise a reasonable and demonstrably justified infringement of this right." Creepy right?

[@oliverjarosi]

eww

[@maxentropy7596]

I appreciate your sense of neutrality and conviction in this matter - good work. - Questions: 1: who selects the Law Society members? How do these good folk get into these positions? - 2: what is the next item on their agenda? - 3: do you think they have an agenda? And to what end? - Surely, these people realize that restrictions on freedom to innovate and thought generate greater variability? It seems they do not understand or value either freedom or evolution of thought. - I am not in the legal space.

[@user-ox5tj9cu3y]

Further to Professor Pardy's comments at 16:22 that the Law Society has not defined which definition of equality it is referring to, the Law Society has in fact clearly stated that it means substantive equality. From the Law Society's web site on the Statement of Principles definitions page: "Whereas “formal equality” involves “equal treatment for those in similar situations and different treatment for those in dissimilar situations” (‘treating likes alike’),” *** “substantive equality” does not always require treating all people the same. Substantive equality, rather, is aimed at “recognizing and responding to difference and remedying discrimination and stereotyping.” **** It requires “acknowledgment of and response to differences that members of a particular group might experience” in order to be treated equally.***** To be clear, it is substantive equality that human rights/diversity policies in legal workplace should be aiming for."

[@Krav_Swaga]

The early bucko kills the dragon

[@khatharrmalkavian3306]

The early dragon gets its room cleaned.

[@BigJL5288]

The layers lol

[@SikGamer70]

The early Kermit cleans their damn room.

[@283518]

well said lol

[@haygirlaerials]

Even with the sound issues this discussion was thoughtful, informative and a little bit terrifying! Thank you Jordan B Peterson for making me aware of the substantial problem growing in the Canadian political climate. As a professional artist freedom of speech and open dialogue matters to me, of course, but Uncle Jordy (as I affectionately call him) has educated me well on WHY freedom of speech matters beyond artistic expression! Uncle Jordy has effectively shown me how freedom of speech/open dialogue helps things run better and contributes to the development of new ideas, the identifying of bad ones and the general well being of individuals

[@perfectiondreamusa]

step 1: Force people to sign document espousing diversity with threat to lose license step 2: conveniently "find" instances/take unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination step 3: use step 2 to accuse lawyers of violating step 1 and revoke licenses. step 4: repeat until herd is sufficiently culled and compliant

[@endless3cho]

Richard Aurrecoechea exactly. This has got to be horrible for principled ppl who can see what they're going to have to make a "choice" on.

[@garetclaborn]

even without revoking licenses, this "conduct" will restrict the ability of lawyers to formulate cases against advancing PC activism in court

[@williamst.george5908]

To an American it sounds like Canada has reached such a high level of social perfection that even more levels of subtlety must be looked into to find ways of further perfection. But based on what I have read about Canada over the years it hardly strikes me that Canada is an utopia. If pursued eventually only inter racial marriages will be viewed favorably; two whites marrying will be labelled racist. Meanwhile genuine injustices will be ignored. E.g. the way native Canadians are treated and have been all along. And I am certain that there are many other injustices Canadians could mention. In a way Canada is ducking into vague abstractions to avoid realities.

[@garetclaborn]

i wonder what they will do when they realize that epigentics is causing all races to become whiter slowly right now

[@mkrump9403]

It`s not authoritarian like this. These clowns of subversive power against the real system... will be clash once they will really show up. That is the funny part. Canadian know that you can have all guns you want. But without strength clear political stand points you will lose at political battles. RCMP always had neutral power and safety distance over/from the political power. The FBI and CIA had turned many times against the hand that were feed them. Canadian politics might looks stupid by the time but everything is legally checked. ((By the way Clintons would never had survived in Canadian politics arena and Trump is just the mirror of their shadow side.))

[@qqtastic]

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.

[@thebroccolilobby4637]

I know that this 'vagueness' is deliberate. It puts professionals under stress at risk of 're-education'. This is how you get political prisoners, political psychology and psychiatry. First you threaten the professionals and then make sure they know if they stand up for the population against the Party, they will wind up in a camp. I realky don't think I'm over- reacting. If I were Canadian, I would now be applying for sanctuary in Russia. As a child of refugees from Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, I find these discussions traumatizing. I would not trust a professional who complied. I am going to start learning and teaching my children Russian in case we have to do the return of thejourney with one suitcase that my parents made to the west.

[@mkrump9403]

Speak about it! I encourage you to make a video about your history and your similarity with these gangster lawmakers and with what you was witness of!

[@ifreelysay3586]

I'm concerned to see Jared even using the term "racialized licencees" at 1:55 to refer to his non-white colleagues in the legal profession. This term implies victim status to whoever it's being applied to.

[@RukaSubCh]

Who judges the judgment and by what standards?

[@mkrump9403]

Your question will show some weak points of their organization. Or corrupted points of their power...

[@thermalreboot]

Canada has now entered 1933 Germany, where the people will be required conform to legally compelled speech and actions.

[@thermalreboot]

Ok, either way it's bad.

[@mkrump9403]

It is some ideologue obscure group leading to give them self more power instead of working with the team. There is always few who bit the hand that feeding them.

[@xmikex902x]

I’m so glad you did this, thank you for the update and the clarification on these laws. I read through them, and in debate, it could easily be misconstrued as just precautionary measures against discrimination, and it’s so much more than that.

[@pennyhutchison8246]

Thank you to the fighters!

[@AdarBlu]

Now, I know this will sound stupid, but how hard would it be to start a rival alternative 'Law Society'? If a 'guild' system is being used couldn't a group of lawyers/judges start a rival one as it were?

[@Anne-LiseH]

That’s called a revolution. See historical France for an example of declaring laws not supported by the monarchy at the time.

[@AndyJarman]

How about creating a simple club and publishing its members list, without actually stating what it is? The Jordan K Peterson fan club. The discerning public can then see who is bright enough to see through this without having to 'break the rules'. Pretty soon most lawyers would be wearing their bright orange JKP badges out of self respect, those that don't would be avoided by discerning clients, and looked down on by judges.

[@garetclaborn]

I agree one should be started even if it can't reach the goal for another 10 years or so

[@mkrump9403]

The alternative is the real Canadian justice system.

[@hanalulu6408]

All Canadians need the law community to take a stand. If lawyers are not able to resist this pressure what chance do other less qualified and educated groups have?

[@mkrump9403]

It`s still a long process but the epic fail wont give any place to open this idiotic ideology back.

[@bigMACDavey]

Thank you for your leadership, gentlemen.

[@markiankalinoski3905]

Here people can find some of the ideologues behind this: www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/19/law-society-report-proposes-changes-to-combat-systemic-racism.html

[@ifreelysay3586]

Looking at that article it seems the driver of this change is crude identity politics. The lawyers want to see people of their own kind in higher legal positions. One of the lawyers says it creates a negative impact when they don't "see themselves reflected in their firm". He's referring to people of his own specific ethnic group mainly. It seems like various ethnic groups are using "systemic racism" as an excuse to promote "their people" in the legal profession.

[@anevilrotisserie9136]

How did these people get so much sway?

[@mkrump9403]

As real Canadian... These minority cloud clowns should just go by themselves and make new an better firm... But these clowns are already destroying their team spirit by fighting the hand that feed them... They should get in ranks of their enterprise or build their own firm as the best American/Canadian spirit will. Even these new generation lawyers would screw up on their goals because they are using their minority claims to fight for individual self powering. (I am a french Canadian... I got a good ear on Jordan`s work...)

[@torindavies1176]

Their rooms are still clean

[@ElBlancoPapi]

I literally cleaned my room.....have to say, it's MUCH better now!!! So much more room for Activities.....So many Activities

[@ElBlancoPapi]

I literally cleaned my room.....Much better!! So much more room for Activities....so many Activities my head is spinning!!

[@torindavies1176]

+David Belcher hahaha, I believe step brothers inspired Peterson's moral/psychological viewpoint.

[@lessevdoolbretsim]

I still need to sort myself oat.

[@BS-np8xt]

*LEGAL STATUS: SORTED*

[@xmikex902x]

B S lmao. I wonder what Peterson thinks of these comments - if he’s like proud at all or something

[@ImNotJoshPotter]

Arianny'sFartBox there was a q&a where he said he'll show his family some of the jokes and memes people make of him. Also said they help keep him in check. Oh and look up the metaphysics of pepe. I think he's embraced the memes

[@kevinhornbuckle]

This is a very high level of analysis. I've taken a few days to listen and assimilate. These tools of analysis are really critical to defending yourself from this tide of authoritarianism.

[@mkrump9403]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#/media/File:Every_Canadian_Needs_A_Copy.jpg It does not allow anyone to be judge on his ethnicity. So the whole thing is death in the egg. But few are making a nice selling idea. That is the whole problem here... Very few are trying to subversive our Canadian rights and justice system. I believe it always been but with internet we do have a possibility to get the matter as fast as professional lawyers.

[@DanA-hm7fd]

Thanks for the update on this important matter; the guests are always awesome. Also Bill 148 ,(the Ontario government’s pending equal pay legislation), is a sticking point in the Ontario college strike right now as well. I figured I'd mention it for folks who don't know about more equity bills. Keep these important videos coming, I love them!

[@WayneMacDonald1]

Although this might sound like an odd request, could a summary video presenting the issue, the concerns and proposed solutions? While I sat through both this and the previous video, I am also painfully aware of the short attention span of most people.

[@tuppybrill4915]

Circa 52:00 makes an interesting point in that since the population that should be looked at for assessing whether your sub-group (law firm) reflects the proportions of diversity within the population has already been filtered (e.g. What proportion of those passing the bar exam are from ethnic minorities) your sub-group can only be expected , at best, to reflect that filtered population not the population as a whole. So the law society should be looking at the systemic anti-diversity in the examination system before it ever looks at the law firms - what's the point of an exam system at all if it doesn't identify the best but just takes a random slice across the population so that it can reflect the diversity within the overall population.

[@ManInTheBigHat]

Fabulous discussion. You guys are doing great work bringing this to the attention of the public. No one I talk to knows anything about C-16 or this issue. I'm curious where the construction noise in the background was coming from.

[@mkrump9403]

C-16 won`t survive once it will be challenged.

[@ManInTheBigHat]

Man, I hope that's the case.

[@fraukatze3856]

It's odd that, for an organization of lawyers, the proposed regulation is so ill-defined.

[@shupder]

it's deliberately vague, so the meaning of the words and their implications can manifest later. "diversity" and "equality" (equity) are deliberate basterdisations, while inclusion remains completely undefined.

[@o00nemesis00o]

Lawyers are gonna be deliberately vague when it's about someone else's obligations. Preferably in a way that criminalises you whatever you do.

[@RobSinclaire]

Reasonable, intelligent, productive Men cannot submit to such nonsense; to be led around by the nose thus!

[@mkrump9403]

Yeah Wait for the moment that it will be challenged. It will be a historic event in Canadian justice system. haha

[@RobSinclaire]

Rather let us take on such challenges to Free Speech moment by moment; our adversaries lose the advantage of stealth thereby and a little History is made every day!

[@tuppybrill4915]

Circa 18:00 in - this is a REALLY important point. I had the gut feeling that "hate crime" should not be a thing but not being bright enough was cowed by the "you accept mitigating circumstances so why not hate" type argument but the motivation should only be taken into account in the sentencing not in the formulation of law. If I attack someone because I am prejudiced then I should be tried for the attack not the prejudice but the severity of the sentence might reflect my prejudice. Lawyers, am I right or am I missing something?

[@mkrump9403]

I can say that law is never black and white... Its large and grey. But lines are there to be pickup and used. Now this regulation had annoying no one... but once it will... This would be nice to see the whole thing fail apart. Like unconstitutional fact. This is how psychopath rise in power... They are creating fall hope and once they face the reality... They are not enough strong to get it and disappear to sell their bullshit ideas to someone else.

[@Marmocet]

So Social Justice is becoming Canada's state mandated religion then.

[@unixrebel]

exactly!

[@garetclaborn]

"becoming" ;)

[@mkrump9403]

I wait their epic fail...

[@be_yourbest_you3632]

I am very concerned! Come on Canadian lawyers please wake up and get behind this Rebellion to "human rights/diversity policy".

[@mkrump9403]

Lawyers need stuff to work on... and now it's only vague ideologue at embryonic level of creating. S

[@revwazoo487]

This must be fought simultaneously on several levels. Yes, fighting it on its intrinsically illiberal (and potentially illegal) grounds is necessary. Meanwhile, rearguard actions to practically slow its de facto advance whilst the fundamental defence is developed. Providing certified "Inclusive and Diversity"training which is in fact based on classically liberal inclusiveness and diversity (i.e: being color-blind and gender-blind to in matters of employment) would help lot. Do NOT allow only one voice to be heard. If, in the interim, "diversity" training must be provided then we would be seriously remiss to allow the post-modernists to be the sole providers of that; classically liberal diversity training must also be on offer!

[@shadfurman]

Isn't saying practicing law is voluntary worse than that even? What about those whom want a lawyer that is not biased towards the compelled ideology? They have no choice.

[@MrTheGuitarNerd]

"You don't have to go to prison, you just have to do what we say"

[@WilsonLee123]

What's more powerful than making someone say something? It's not really about the ideas in the compelled speech, It's the fact that they decide what you say.

[@GeorgeOu]

I'm glad you took my advice to wear the earbuds on the host side that's doing the recording. Now you're not picking up guest audio from the speakers and creating a huge echo. The sync is very easy to fix actually. The video quality can't.

[@Reziac]

Consider the self-reporting component as gulag-style self-incrimination, and how the mere act of admitting guilt creates guilt. That component is, to my mind, far more insidious than were reporting done by an official with a clipboard.

[@johngalt7240]

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:)

[@shmeet]

Mr. Peterson, @52:15 you mention the US. Can you please expand on where in the US you see this happening?

[@dektran4843]

CA

[@nicolel2636]

Dr. Petersen, I can't thank you and your associates enough in the battle for what is right, but as you know, it goes farther than this. Everyone seems to have forgotten that we live in a free country and it's the Canadian people, who should have the final say. Our politics and judiciary are arranging the loss of our national sovereignty for the implementation of international laws. These do not only affect our daily lives but our careers and all we do inside and outside of our homes. They also interfere with our human rights as a collective of a sovereign country. it's time for the Canadian people to enforce our collective rights that are missing from our constitution which is still archaic and only serves to confuse the Canadian citizens and the Indigenous nations of Canada. Action needs to be taken now before we are too late. Our nationality is in jeopardy and we need to reclaim it now. All that is happening is because of our loss of nationalism and sovereignty. it's nothing short of recolonization of everyone through dictatorship on this planet. Please see the Canadian Peoples Union at myfreedom2017.com, thank you.

[@pennyhutchison8246]

Omg! Hope you WIN this!

[@redair4573]

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.

[@leonardodic3po607]

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.

[@pointcuration1278]

If IATs are not permissible in court, why would we use them on lawyers?

[@PressAnyButton2Start]

Why was the first one taken down?

[@Sourdoughgirl]

They probably tried to fix the audio sync problems. Unfortunately, they couldn't fix it.

[@equinti5]

I'm guessing he took it down himself since this one says "Update:".

[@jovisbody]

probably because of the audio sync issues mentioned above.

[@sartwon]

44:00 mark: if systemic racism is actively monitored, then the monitoring becomes systemic and abusive. For the possibility of original independent thought expressed by unique individuals becomes threatening and alienating versus a strength of diversity.

[@standinstann]

I've read through the guidelines on the Ontario law society's website, Where is the partisan pitical content in those guidelines? Or in any of the requirement for that matter?

[@philstaples8122]

Can't there be some form of vote of no confidence in the executive of the law society? They obviously have a political agenda and that's not good for the legal system.

[@cindyruk8873]

It was possible for employee of RBC who protested the bias training to insist on the removal of the bias module from the learning path. Hope others follow.

[@mkrump9403]

YEah those government light initiative fail when confronted to the reality check. But that is open western society: open for challenges.

[@genebalfour5082]

Hello Jordan I enjoyed your podcast about the Ontario Law Society imposing on its members a requirement (condition of membership?) to sign a statement of principles that is designed to placate the Social Justice advocates in society. I doubt that 100% of the blame for this requirement can be laid at the feet of the OLS governors since a contentious, politically-motivated action like this would clearly have come from much higher up in the Liberal hierarchy. In fact, the DNA of Kathleen and Justin can likely be found on it by a non-partisan forensic analysis ;-). This action is a typical Liberal “divide and conquer” political play: First step is to identify a social bogeyman. In this case, it's “systemic racism” ( you can almost imagine a hunchback-like character lurking in the dark corners; cue the suspense music) ;-) Second step. Lay the blame on a collective entity … the legal profession is the current target. Notice that no single person was charged because it is much easier for the public to try and convict an impersonal collective ( a construct only) than a human being with a name, face, family, etc. Third. Notify the public that there is danger afoot, but to fear not: the Liberals are here on their white steeds ready to save the day. Fourth. Be seen to actually “save the day”. Corner the hunchback with regulations, and flex the muscles of a horde of enforcement officials who are on duty to keep you and your loved ones safe from harm. Five. Allow a credible amount of time to pass, and then announce that the threat has passed and to keep voting for Kathleen or Justin if you wish to ensure that all suspicious hunchback characters are neutralized. Be sure to tell the public that no discrimination of suspicious hunchbacks was intended since the sex, sexual preference, colour, age, religion, education level and political views of the perpetrator(s) in question have never been revealed to the public to protect the Human Rights of the person(s) in question. The bottom line in this episode? Lawyers are being played. This OLS requirement is designed to stir up the righteous indignation of ever stakeholder who is paying attention. This is simply political theatre and the play will unfold every strike action and collective bargaining suspense drama to which the public has ever been subjected. And the heroes are always the same - the politicians who stand up to take credit. I am a Libertarian and I am preparing for my sixth election “campaign”. I believe in the state’s obligation to defend and protect individual person and property rights from aggression arising from any source, including the government itself. Most Common Law has been formulated on the same principles since the enactment of the Magna Carta. It has only been since Trudeau Sr. that collective rights have replaced individual rights as the central focus of modern governments. My problem with this shift is that I have personally never met a “collective” entity, knew his or her name, enjoyed a meal together or dated one. As such, this type of bogeyman is as real to me as the Tooth Fairy or a unicorn. I have acquired a visceral hatred for modern Big Governments and the “divide and conquer” head games that they play so well on so many of the ill-informed and gullible members of society. I admire the work that you are doing to raise our awareness on so many issues. Some time ago, I sent a message to you to ask if you would join the Ontario Libertarian Party since your causes resonate so well with our platform and principles. I am sure that my message was one of thousands and was not considered seriously if considered at all. Keep up the great work. You are a great Canadian and you should be very proud. Gene Balfour Libertarian candidate, Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes- Brock 647-309-7827 www.libertarian.on.ca/platform What motivates BORG (blue, orange, red and Green) politicians? Few citizens understand that the Ontario government behaves like any big corporate enterprise insomuch as their "executives" seek growth for the sake of achieving more power, prestige and the spoils of success. BORG politicians are also likewise motivated and view their road to power by promising and delivering More Government using OPM (other people's money) [I refer to this as their OPM addiction]. The Ontario government is effectively in the "regulation manufacturing and enforcement" business: the more regulations they make, the more money (tax revenue) is needed to enforce them. Regulation enforcement is an expense business especially when you consider the 1.2 million Ontario civil servants that must be paid and supported with tools (office space, computer networks, vehicles, etc.) to do their jobs. Regulations have doubled in the past 25 years to 380,000 and there is no end on site for more government expansion. You cannot decrease government powers, scope of authority and associated spending until you reduce regulations (aka the scope of government responsibilities). The Ontario Libertarian Party is the only political party that campaigns for Less Government. In practice, this means that the scope of government responsibilities be reduced to the core functions [defending and protecting individual person and property rights from aggression] of government in order to use scarce resources to focus on the things that are most crucial to Ontario's 9 million citizens. In the private sector, organizational adjustments have been common over the past 100 years as the pace of new business innovation has steadily picked up. All major corporations have found it necessary to "re-structure", "down-size", "right-size", "fine-tune operations", etcetera in order to meet the survive&thrive needs of the enterprise for the sake of the stakeholders (employees and shareholders). Every taxpayer is a stakeholder of the Ontario Public Service and, as such, deserves that their government also "re-structure", "down-size", "right-size" and "fine-tune operations" as required. However, our political elite have always lacked the motivation and the will to do the right thing for our citizens. Voting Libertarian is the right thing to do by any citizen who believes that our governments have exceeded the scope of their legitimate mandate. The self-serving, weak-willed members of our political elite will never be replaced by people who will serve our interests as they are paid to do unless we take political action to accomplish this. Ultimately, we are their boss. We only need to ask for this change in sufficient numbers for it to eventually become a reality.

[@tomski2671]

So, persuing eqality of outcome necessary destroys equality of opportunity.

[@ashleywest3231]

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.

[@geoffmeek2437]

Can't we Name and Shame the people who are pushing this stuff?

[@garetclaborn]

are you suggesting these people don't have the very best of intentions to raise diversity in the workplace??? GASP. SHOCK. DISBELIEF. oh my poor poor sensibilities, such triggered

[@icareg]

a few good men

[@BurtMeister]

By "inclusivity" I think they mean non exclusion of certain demographics. Dark days ahead...

[@jacobvisser4955]

Can we attribute much of this to to the Wynne government? The term unconscious bias training is off and running in so many facets already, look at our education system, from young through to adolescence and beyond.

[@TDawg736]

I am so fed up with the school-marmy crap coming from academics and government types. They treat everyone like a bunch of pre-schoolers. In the end, they're bullies with a smiling face -- until you cross them and then they throw everything they've got at you.

[@TheMcGloneCode]

Hi Dr. Peterson, how did you record this such that all 3 of your faces are on screen at the same time? I am looking for a way to do something similar. Thanks!

[@lkthreestone4214]

What is a search engine? Thanks.

[@brucehearn2621]

A year and a half has passed since this update. Could you, Mr. Pardy, and Mr. Brown provide a further update? I dread this creeping socialism will trickle south. And as you noted, we already have problems in this regard.

[@HeyItzMeDawg]

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.

[@davidrapalyea7727]

I thought we were over this crap back in the 1960's. Geo. Orwell. Now up close and personal. Diversity training. Incoherent gulag. Intellectual infants.

[@IanGerritsen]

You guys are fighting the good fight still, much

[@hucksinette]

Is that guy the guy that played devil's advocate in that debate with Jordan?

[@Anomynous]

What can you tell future lawyers? What is your advice? I'm not one just curious how people should deal with this.

[@CarlWais]

If the current demands of compelled speech by the Law Society are defeated, what contingency plan(s) are being developed to permanently prevent similar demands in the future? All it takes is ONE victory for those in favour of such demands and the whole game is over!

[@fredd7540]

If they allow for ' discrimination for ameliorative ends' then that's self defeating. Because hiring based on skill only certainly 'ameliorates' the quality of the service. Why is it assumed that 'amelioration' means diversity? And why is it assumed that 'diversity' means diversity of ethnicity or sexuality.

[@KollontaiBeads]

One goal (maybe a very large one?) is to provide employment for a myriad of people with the "proper training" to staff the diversity training, diversity data analysis, diversity enforcement, etc. positions that will need to be created to implement all the policies. Political patronage jobs at their finest!

[@TofeldianSage]

If a plaintiff were to bring an action regarding the use or non-use of pronouns, it would be unethical for any lawyer to act for the defense, and that lawyer would risk being disbarred if they did. So the way would be clear for any plaintiff to bring such an action, and the defendent would not be able to receive a fair trial. And I would guess the judge would also have a hard time avoiding the ethical guidelines. This is the real danger of having political guidelines masquerading as ethical guidelines.

[@mkrump9403]

keep looking for those lawyers giving news about it. They will probably make open stuff (inclusion) to their group by signatures and public activity once they will have all their elements required. But at this point it`s really like chest game. Step by step

[@Ioganstone]

Canada's constitution has all the principles of doing what the king says

[@becauseitscurrentyear8397]

"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law," (Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Preamble)

[@KENT4L4]

Could you find a suitable legal remedy or such in your local competition law? At least the EU competition law and the Finnish clone in certain cases prevent the ruling body to impose such rules that disturb competition more than it is needed to attain certain goals (although they might be justifiable). At least for me it seems that the means to promote inclusiveness etc. are too harsh. Just a thought you already might have considered. All the respect to you guys!

[@furtim1]

One more reason to be opposed to licenses of all kinds. If you didn't have to be government approved to be an attorney, this wouldn't hardly matter.

[@willybiber3035]

Great discussion, many thanks. What drives people to act out Kafka ? Could one say that folks who detect ‚systematic‘ misconduct everywhere kind like diagnose their own urge to have total control over other people, if not life ? Why otherwise would they try to construe a reality which they can control by their way of using language ? What about a ‚systematic‘ fear of life being a root cause ? Disdain or malevolence would make it sound more grandiose than it may really be. And how to instill trust in these poor souls ?

[@shadforthw3535]

@16:00- he explains 2 different kinds of equality and how the can not coexist as well as how one is the theme of a totalitarian state like Stalinist Soviet Union

[@skilletpan5674]

I never knew that Dr.Spoc was also a Lawyer!

[@isecurity6801]

How do I get judges insurance bond,ommission error insurance or vetted etc.please

[@TheJavaMonkey]

As a Californian, I have no official stake in this - that is, no right based upon citizenship or residency to petition to have my voice heard on the matter. That said, our countries and cultures are not unconnected. I watch the development of this issue with some concern. This essentially mandates bias of thought, and if they bind the hands of the lawyers successfully, they essentially strip away any hope anyone else has to challenge them as it’s rolled out elsewhere.

[@mkrump9403]

The Canadian government is open with filter. These event is still ideology... and it wont pass the filter of logic commonsense. But they are free to speak and write about it the way they want.

[@nosraltinmad5767]

I can't listen to this anymore, if this were a comedy skit I'd still find it depressing.

[@georgeh8937]

This is like your manager saying "employee joe screwed up but i am going to lecture the whole department". Law Society should deal with specific offenders. don't over-generalise and overreach.

[@beholder9]

If I were Canadian, I would be horrified right now.

[@MrTheGuitarNerd]

We don't get horrified, we get quietly indignant, thank you very much. Sorry if that was rude.

[@barbarahouk1983]

This is incrementalism. This is how they pry and use this to tear away at freedom.

[@kenlee5509]

They will eat themselves trying to justify their claim to harm. Empty the Law Society of them as they fail.

[@georgeh8937]

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.

[@80p80p]

"Inclusivity" is about providing an environment which minorities will perceive as friendly. For example, if you got muslims colleges, the organization should provide prayer and cleaning rooms.

[@theknightswhosay]

Bar associations are supposed to be to protect consumers/clients. I don't see how this furthers that, but you certainly can't pretend it's not a concern for the general public.

[@svaldman]

The Law Society finds ways to waste members' money instead of focusing on core competencies and teaching lawyers how to run profitable legal practices.

[@arturmuellerromanov4438]

This quality reminds me of Starcraft 1 Icons. No offense

[@joethemig1522]

Artur Müller LoL'd

[@alexjorgson1435]

WELCOME MAGISTRATE.

[@endless3cho]

Also reminded me of Command & Conquer.

[@arturmuellerromanov4438]

I wouldnt be surprised if the gentleman in the upper right corner would announce a nuclear missile launch any moment. He got the ghosty look in his eyes

[@endless3cho]

Jonathan Neufeld yeah haha!

[@BearbearbearbearbearbearRarrrr]

Got an update for this yet?

[@CodyHazelleMusic]

A few times throughout the video they use the term "racialized licensee", what does this mean exactly?

[@mkrump9403]

*For now that is only an expression:* It`s an idea about having the authorization to speak/use and manipulating races and ethnics by the same individuals that are trying to implementing/ (will forcing) a regulation this type of regulation. And these same individuals (obscure law society) are protesting against these type of racial exclusion manipulation by ((theorize)) that Canadian society and culture is doing mass exclusion of immigrant. Which is a non sens in mass Canadian culture and for sure if you are looking case by case over millions individuals you will find a significant amount of stupid individual having stupid strong thoughts... If you are a lawyer from an ethnic minority. You do your best to completed your work. and that is it. like any other employees involve inside the company. But some individuals are trying to forcing some work environment to include (by ideological/law/force) to include more visible minority. The problem is workplace are about performances and not forcing ethnic group to be excluding or including. All the team is chosen by trust of individual's actions. We are not racist in Canada and their are already laws against racist boss. laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html So this idea/concept is creating a license to rationalizing individuals based on ethnics. Racialized licensee for regulation that wont give the result wished and might create more conflicts by the way that some will be defended by government while others will have to defend their jobs and skill harder between the same group... One will just have to be in position and others will have to work more to keep their place... It's creating more inequality that are already be. The Democracy is the principal base... If there are 4 immigrants and 6 non immigrants. Well deal with it and that is your working place. Competence is a key success and not statics fashion view of what others will think and say about a so call nice mix of DNA. The obscure effect here is that some are getting the idea to jungle this metaphor regulation to a common static law and will impose new fake standard. (Few are really looking take more power from every freedom inch they can control. They have little conscious and working to screw up everything to gain little advantage over others.) The Canadian chart of liberty is by principle and will disqualified this type prejudicial accommodation. That is where this whole thing will die. But by the way the government can disposal his employees the way its wants. The Canadian government is already having this strategy in job recruitment. But still no one got hurt from it because must of the time criteria are evaluated before being apply. That is not the American government of none retrospection. Canadian dont sent bomb then say (ho I am sorry) few decades laters. IF you give someone a racial licence be sure someone will use it completely to his own individual advantage and disregarding others needs. Dont forget Jordan his a doctor and both others are solid respected professionals.