Compelled Speech in Canada

[Smitty-48]

An organization empowered by the government is the government.

But if it doesn't bug you that they can coerce people into things like that, so be it.

Government coercion in of itself? That doesn't bug me by default, depends who is being coerced by which arm of the government for what reason, like, obviously if I was diametrically opposed to government coercion, I never would have joined the military, clearly I'm prepared to abide some considerable level of government coercion, and I took the pension too.

For 22 years the Crown could have compelled me to speak on pain of not only being fired, but actual imprisonment, hard labour, so government coercion to speak regime I have lived under, and it didn't really bug me that much, so long as the cheques kept going in the bank.

[StCapps]

An organization empowered by the government is the government.

But if it doesn't bug you that they can coerce people into things like that, so be it.

Government coercion in of itself? That doesn't bug me by default, depends who is being coerced by which arm of the government for what reason, like, obviously if I was diametrically opposed to government coercion, I never would have joined the military, clearly I'm prepared to abide some considerable level of government coercion, and I took the pension too.

The only people who are bugged by default by any government coercion whatsoever are anarchists. Fuck anarchists, and the horses they rode in on.

[Smitty-48]

An organization empowered by the government is the government.

But if it doesn't bug you that they can coerce people into things like that, so be it.

Government coercion in of itself? That doesn't bug me by default, depends who is being coerced by which arm of the government for what reason, like, obviously if I was diametrically opposed to government coercion, I never would have joined the military, clearly I'm prepared to abide some considerable level of government coercion, and I took the pension too.

The only people who are bugged by default by any government coercion whatsoever are anarchists. Fuck anarchists, and the horses they rode in on.

I don't even get what the big whoop is, some lefty wefty pledge to be nicey wicey to minorities, women and gays? Realpolitik; good for business, I'd frame it and put on the wall of my office, I'm not going to be the lawyer who isn't nicey wicey to minorities, women and gays, that could hit me in the wallet, and as a lawyer, it's all about my wallet, law school don't pay for itself yo, even if you're a lawyer, you gotta hustle, you don't get to be Eddie Greenspan overnight.

It's the market which is coercing here, not the Crown, market forces; no sense trying to swim up river against them.

[DBTrek]

I'm noticing a trend in this convo away from "compelled speech" and toward general coercion.
Now we got Capps in here talking about government is force, so obviously anyone who has a problem with swearing oaths to SJWs is an anarchist.


No one said government coercion is abhorrent.
We're talking about "compelling speech", guys.
Sorry to drop that roadblock in the middle of your escape route.

[Martin Hash]

I think the Washington State Bar requires lawyers to submit to rectal exams, swear to the Dark Lord, and eat babies. (I've never found out what happens if I don't do these things.)

[Smitty-48]

I'm noticing a trend away from "compelled speech" toward general coercion.
Now we got Capps in here talking about government is force, so obviously anyone who has a problem with swearing oaths to SJWs is an anarchist.


No one said government coercion is abhorrent.
We're talking about "compelling speech", guys.
Sorry to drop that roadblock in the middle of your escape route.

Like I said, I don't find it abhorrent in of itself, if you take the Queen's Schilling, she can compel you to speak, if you don't like it, don't take the Queen's Schilling, problem solved.

If you work for the government, they can compel you to sign things, if you don't sign it, you're fired, no change there, working for the government, as it has always been.

The only constitutional protection against being compelled to speak, is self incrimination in a court of law, that doesn't protect you from having to speak government policy when you're working for them.

[Martin Hash]

I'm noticing a trend in this convo away from "compelled speech" and toward general coercion.
Now we got Capps in here talking about government is force, so obviously anyone who has a problem with swearing oaths to SJWs is an anarchist.


No one said government coercion is abhorrent.
We're talking about "compelling speech", guys.
Sorry to drop that roadblock in the middle of your escape route.

It's Canada, they don't have liberty. (Don't take my word for it, ask Jordan Peterson at the Univ of Toronto.)

[apeman]

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.

Just saw this thread for first time (I was like "canada? pffft")

No fucking way would I sign this toxic garbage.

I can add that in the last year or so the NY Bar Association has issued some statements using the same marxist language, I don't like it, but the NY Bar Association can do whatever it wants, I am not a member and I don't have to be.*


*they must be desperate for members, I got a phone call offering membership for half-off, no thanks, month later got offered a free membership, and the thought of spending two minutes giving my info over the phone was too high a barrier, no thanks

[SuburbanFarmer]

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.

Just saw this thread for first time (I was like "canada? pffft")

No fucking way would I sign this toxic garbage.

I can add that in the last year or so the NY Bar Association has issued some statements using the same marxist language, I don't like it, but the NY Bar Association can do whatever it wants, I am not a member and I don't have to be.*


*they must be desperate for members, I got a phone call offering membership for half-off, no thanks, month later got offered a free membership, and the thought of spending two minutes giving my info over the phone was too high a barrier, no thanks

....?

[Smitty-48]

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.

Just saw this thread for first time (I was like "canada? pffft")

No fucking way would I sign this toxic garbage.

I can add that in the last year or so the NY Bar Association has issued some statements using the same marxist language, I don't like it, but the NY Bar Association can do whatever it wants, I am not a member and I don't have to be.*


*they must be desperate for members, I got a phone call offering membership for half-off, no thanks, month later got offered a free membership, and the thought of spending two minutes giving my info over the phone was too high a barrier, no thanks

32 states and the District of Columbia require you to be a member of the bar association, no?

So called "mandatory, integrated, unified bar", is that not so?