Compelled Speech in Canada

[DBTrek]

Capps and Smitty just taking it all in stride.

[Smitty-48]

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.

It has no force of law, disbarment is not a legal enforcement measure imposed by the Crown, disbarment is something the lawyers impose on themselves, mind you, it's subject to judicial review, civil litigation, so let us know when a) somebody gets disbarred over it, and b) that passes judicial review, otherwise, you; hysterical panic monkey spreading fake news.

[Viktorthepirate]

Yes, very hysterical.

So it doesn't have force of law? What about being unable to practice law or even notarize documents?

No force of law or government involvement involved with that?

[Speaker to Animals]

Capps and Smitty just taking it all in stride.

*yip*

[Speaker to Animals]

[Smitty-48]

Yes, very hysterical.

So it doesn't have force of law? What about being unable to practice law or even notarize documents?

No force of law or government involvement involved with that?

Show me where that has happened? It's not a law, no law, no force of law.

In terms of association standards for employment? Civil case, take it to a judge, but the Crown is not involved, the Crown only prosecutes criminal law.

When you go to civil court, the Crown is not involved, it would be the lawyer, the association, and the judiciary, the Queen is not in the room.

No Queen? No force of law, the judiciary will rule in terms of civil litigation, but nobody is ever charged with a crime therein.

[DBTrek]

Show me where that has happened? It's not a law, no law, no force of law.

In terms of association standards for employment? Civil case, take it to a judge, but the Crown is not involved, the Crown only prosecutes criminal law.

When you go to civil court, the Crown is not involved, it would be the lawyer, the association, and the judiciary, the Queen is not in the room.

No Queen? No force of law, the judiciary will rule in terms of civil litigation.

Nothing to see here, man.
Let's just talk aboot hockey or something, eh?

[Speaker to Animals]

Royalists being royalists. They've been playing this game for centuries now.

[Fife]

Who knew the queen was so feckless?

I didn't know the powdered wigs counted as a separate sovereign up there.

The Law Society demands tribute to Gloria Steinem one day, Beelzebub the next? Tough titty, Canucks-at-law. The crown is powerless to assist, I guess.

[Viktorthepirate]

Yes, very hysterical.

So it doesn't have force of law? What about being unable to practice law or even notarize documents?

No force of law or government involvement involved with that?

Show me where that has happened? It's not a law, no law, no force of law.

In terms of association standards for employment? Civil case, take it to a judge, but the Crown is not involved, the Crown only prosecutes criminal law.

When you go to civil court, the Crown is not involved, it would be the lawyer, the association, and the judiciary, the Queen is not in the room.

No Queen? No force of law, the judiciary will rule in terms of civil litigation, but nobody is ever charged with a crime therein.

Civil law is backed up by the power of the state as well.

Practicing law without a license is criminal. So if you don't obey you're subject to criminal proceedings.

If a judgement is made against you in a civil court and you don't pay it, the state backs it up with violence if necessary.

An organization with powers granted by the state is the government's duty to regulate.

Seems a great way to make people argue that an organization that is doing things against what people believe is right has nothing to do with the government and nothing can be done about it.

Again, good idea, surprised we don't do it here.