Compelled Speech in Canada

[SuburbanFarmer]

Dude . . . in Ontario you have to swear oaths to the code of SJWs to practice law.
LAW.
That doesn't strike you as kind of a big one?
LAW.

We're not talking about burger flippers here.
We're talking about the profession that carries out justice for the state.
Seems like a pretty big one to surrender to the leftist groupthink.

It's probably likely that many lawyers in heavily democrat leaning states have to sign something fairly similar, that shit is everywhere, it's infesting lots of professions, haven't you noticed?

I'm pretty sure we'd know about it.

MHF lawyers, chime in.

[Smitty-48]

Hey, Capps, you know who else I'm stoked about? Andreas Borgman. Member' him? I had high hopes, SHL rookie of the year, but now that I've seen him in action, he's already exceeded my year one camp expectations, the guy's a playuh, he's already been dishing out bone crushing hits, and he's had his first NHL fight, and he's offensively dangerous too, cannon of a shot.

Borgie is the new news, buh-bye Marincin. Who says the Leafs defence is gonna suck? Fake news.

Even if their defense doesn't suck, it's hardly going to be the strongest part of the team. But hey Borgman, nice hit, cool name, hopefully he's the playuh you claim he is, I'd like to see a larger sample size from him first before I can really tell, consistency is key, and I haven't seen as much of him as you have.

This is diamond in the rough right now, Babs has only had him for two weeks so far, by next year, Borgman will be top 4 D-man quality, he's got all the parts, he just needs some Babsification to bring it all together, and they're gonna have Dermott too, there might not be a Norris Trophy winner in the mix, but as a unit going forward? Rielly, Gardiner, Zaitsev, Borgman, Dermott, Liljegren? Me likey.

You know who else looked good last night? Connor Carrick, don't forget Carrick, he's got more to give.

[StCapps]

I'm pretty sure we'd know about it.

MHF lawyers, chime in.

Why would you know about it? You spend your entire day searching the internet to see if anyone has to sign something saying they believe something they might not actually believe as a requirement of employment, especially when it comes to lawyers? Are you guys totally oblivious to bullshit mission statement type nonsense, that shit is fucking everywhere, and then they force you to sign saying you read it and won't violate employer policy, why would lawyers be exempt from this new fad? This shit isn't new, are y'all living under a rock?

[DBTrek]

Maybe it's only prevalent in Canada.

That would explain why you and Smitty are like "What kool-aid?"
And all the Americans are like "DON'T DRINK THAT!!!"

[Smitty-48]

Check the release;



That was Carey Price, yo.

[StCapps]

Maybe it's only prevalent in Canada.

That would explain why you and Smitty are like "What kool-aid?"
And all the Americans are like "DON'T DRINK THAT!!!"

Or maybe Americans just like to pretend it's only prevalent in Canada, to comfort themselves. I bet tons you signed a similar bullshit paper your employer asked you to sign, at some point, preaching equality and inclusiveness and all that nice sounding cultural marxist doublespeak, you just didn't stop to read it, so you forgot about it.

[Smitty-48]

Aw, shit, this is not the hockey thread.

Sorry bout that, folks, my bad, carry on with your fake news panic monkeying.

[Viktorthepirate]

Aw, shit, this is not the hockey thread.

Sorry bout that, folks, my bad, carry on with your fake news panic monkeying.

Is that a suggestion or a command backed up by the power to take away my means of making a living in my province?

[Smitty-48]

Aw, shit, this is not the hockey thread.

Sorry bout that, folks, my bad, carry on with your fake news panic monkeying.

Is that a suggestion or a command backed up by the power to take away my means of making a living in my province?

Show me where somebody has been disbarred for failing to sign something which has no force of law, or you're just another hysterical panic monkey on the internet, it's not a law, it's not binding, and the law society has not disbarred anybody over it, so; fake news.

It's an association, if they feel the need to sign it, whatever, if they don't, they don't, whatever, has nothing to do with the Government of Canada, nor Canadian law.

And in the end, they're lawyers, so if they want to go to civil court over it, they're free to, but since it's a civil case, that has nothing to do with the Crown neither.

[Viktorthepirate]

Aw, shit, this is not the hockey thread.

Sorry bout that, folks, my bad, carry on with your fake news panic monkeying.

Is that a suggestion or a command backed up by the power to take away my means of making a living in my province?

Show me where somebody has been disbarred for failing to sign something which has no force of law, or you're just another hysterical panic monkey on the internet, it's not a law, it's not binding, and the law society has not disbarred anybody over it, so; fake news.

It's an association, if they feel the need to sign it, whatever, if they don't, they don't, whatever, has nothing to do with the Government of Canada, nor Canadian law.

And in the end, they're lawyers, so if they want to go to civil court over it, they're free to, but since it's a civil case, that has nothing to do with the Crown neither.

Ah I see. So if the government empowers an organization to make decisions such as disbarment but they aren't officially part of the government then it has nothing to do with the government.

Cool idea. Surprised we haven't thought of it.