I am opposed to the Statement of Principles (“SOP”) requirement and if elected will work to have it lifted. I reject such forced speech and forced thought with my heart and soul. Fundamental freedoms define us as Canadians.
For those who feel that opposition to SOP requirement is a tempest in a teapot, please consider this. Who is to decide what behavior constitutes failure to “promote” equality, diversity and inclusion (“EDI”) and thereby professional misconduct? Down that road is where we find the genesis of thought police.
I spent my childhood in Hong Kong in the 60’s, next door to China where the Chinese Cultural Revolution raged on. It was weaponized by identity politics, inciting families to disown each other, friends to betray friends, young people to murder strangers, all to cleanse anti-social ideas from the Chinese conscience. The perpetrators were possessed by a sense of self-righteousness with no room for dissent or difference. Where is the room for difference of opinion in LSO demanding that all lawyers pledge fealty to EDI? What will happen to any lawyer that questions EDI policy?
LSO’s demonstrated self-righteousness and its SOP dogma has no place in a free and democratic society.