Mandating reporting of

Schabas also explains why he thinks the society’s members should fully embrace the new requirements: "This is about doing the right thing for everybody.It’s also doing the right thing for them for business because I think this is something that the business community and the broader population are all recognizing that it’s important for us to remain a progressive, inclusive society." Not everyone sees it that way, however, with some critics describing the requirements as “Orwellian” and even dictatorial. Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto and an outspoken free speech advocate, believes the LSUC is taking an “unprecedented” step in requiring its members to “give up their right to private political and philosophical thought and to their own principles, accepting as alternatives the new ethical trinity of equality, diversity and inclusion (defined solely by race, sex, sexual identity, and ethnicity).” In a statement on his website, Dr.He also hopes to expose what he calls the “dangers” in the LSUC’s new demands with a lengthy interview he posted on his You Tube channel.In the video, he speaks with Jared Brown, a practicing lawyer, and Bruce Pardy, who is a professor of Law at Queen’s University (he also happens to be member of the LSUC).Both men appeared with Peterson before a Senate committee earlier this year in Ottawa, warning against the “compelled speech” they said would come about under the radical transgender rights legislation known as Bill C-16.Pardy, in particular, has been busy voicing his objections to the Law Society’s latest requirements in the mainstream media. Peterson, the professor was recently interviewed by CBC Radio, he also wrote a column in the National Post, saying the mandatory policy “crosses a line that should not be crossed.” “My first instinct was to check my passport,” he stated.Those who support the measure see it as a way of breaking down barriers.

The result would be human catastrophe on a worldwide scale.

Arthur Cockfield, author of Introduction to Legal Ethics, wrote in the Globe and Mail that the Law Society’s directive is spelled out in “Orwellian language” and he views it as a threat to liberty that should be challenged: Forcing lawyers to subscribe to a particular worldview for regulatory purposes is an unacceptable intrusion into a lawyer's liberty and promotes significant harm to the public.

First, the new mandatory obligation is technically "illegal" because, under the Law Society's own rules of professional conduct, which I edited into a book, there is no such obligation to promote the values of equality, diversity and "inclusion generally" (whatever that means) – to pretty much every person who crosses a lawyer's path.

here is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism.

This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity.

Search for mandating reporting of:

mandating reporting of-53mandating reporting of-26

People can be required to obey the speed limit and pay taxes, but they may not be compelled to declare that the speed limits are properly set or that taxes are a good thing.

Leave a Reply

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

One thought on “mandating reporting of”