Remember when the Chauvin jury were interviewed and featured in articles ahead of the trial? And they all swore up and down that they were impartial and not radically left wing? And then they deliberated for like an afternoon before convicting him of both intentional and unintentional murder? And then we found out that one of the jurors was a literal BLM activist?
My point is that leftists do not engage with our legal system in good faith. A judge authoring an editorial in support of a controversial policy would never be permitted to preside over a case involving that policy, but such a thing is allowed to happen because leftists “pinky swear” that their associations and past behavior will magically have no bearing on their duties. We’re operating on a large variety of honor systems with opponents who want us dead. It makes no sense.
The worst part, though? We still adhere to these honor systems even as liars, thieves, and criminals repeatedly kick our teeth in. Right wingers should be aggressively seeking jury duty while hiding their ideology and then nullify every possible pro-left decision.
The trouble with your recommendation is that traditionalists are constitutionally disabled when it comes to deception. The same personality traits that cause people to recognize the value of hierarchy cause us to love honesty and forthrightness.
The right needs to buckle down and respond to this attack in the appropriate, orderly, hierarchical, forthright manner. For examples, see Gaivs Ivlivs Caesar.
The worst part, though? We still adhere to these honor systems even as liars, thieves, and criminals repeatedly kick our teeth in. Right wingers should be aggressively seeking jury duty while hiding their ideology and then nullify every possible pro-left decision.
The argument (just imagine Ben Shapiro making this in his whiney voice) is that principles matter and they need to be universal or they are meaningless.
Which is correct but ultimately futile. Meaning it's a lose/lose scenario.
If only there were a 3rd way of only applying principles to those that share them and not others...
Is this like the state bar in the US, where a lawyer has to join to practice law? Basically a warped implementation of the medieval guild system.
So they compelled lawyers to swear an oath that they shared the political opinion of the bar in order to practice? Nothing authoritarian there, LoL.
Oh Canada, if only you had a real bill of rights and the guns for people to demand the government follow it. I guess you'll just have to settle for being Castro Jr.'s budget banana republic.
To answer your initial semi-rhetorical question, yes, it is. You must be a member and you must take this oath to practice in Ontario. You can have a law degree (JD, LLB, etc.) but you cannot represent a client in legal matters without LSO membership.
Fun fact, they used to be the Law Society of Upper Canada, but that wasn't woke enough. The name "implied superiority over Quebec," and alluded to a time of "First Nations oppression," so it was changed as little more than an opportunity for leftists to flex.
The Upper (Ontario)and Lower (Quebec) Canada nomenclature was also a quaint colonial relic in that Quebec is further north by latitude than Southern Ontario, making it confusing.
But the original Upper/Lower Canada distinction seems to arise that Toronto (York) and Kingston were further up river (actually on Lake Ontario) wrt the St. Lawrence, which would've been the main route of travel at the time.
Yes, these are clubs that you are forced to join in order to practice a profession. Kind of like a union that you're forced to join on account of having a job.
Basically, leftist BS. I'm sure a lot of people have excuses for why occupational licensing is necessary, but I believe in caveat emptor.
Remember when the Chauvin jury were interviewed and featured in articles ahead of the trial? And they all swore up and down that they were impartial and not radically left wing? And then they deliberated for like an afternoon before convicting him of both intentional and unintentional murder? And then we found out that one of the jurors was a literal BLM activist?
My point is that leftists do not engage with our legal system in good faith. A judge authoring an editorial in support of a controversial policy would never be permitted to preside over a case involving that policy, but such a thing is allowed to happen because leftists “pinky swear” that their associations and past behavior will magically have no bearing on their duties. We’re operating on a large variety of honor systems with opponents who want us dead. It makes no sense.
The worst part, though? We still adhere to these honor systems even as liars, thieves, and criminals repeatedly kick our teeth in. Right wingers should be aggressively seeking jury duty while hiding their ideology and then nullify every possible pro-left decision.
The trouble with your recommendation is that traditionalists are constitutionally disabled when it comes to deception. The same personality traits that cause people to recognize the value of hierarchy cause us to love honesty and forthrightness.
The right needs to buckle down and respond to this attack in the appropriate, orderly, hierarchical, forthright manner. For examples, see Gaivs Ivlivs Caesar.
There's a balance between being better than them and fighting them. If you have a good heart, it should guide you.
The way he handles breaking rules is what makes a man. Choose carefully.
The argument (just imagine Ben Shapiro making this in his whiney voice) is that principles matter and they need to be universal or they are meaningless. Which is correct but ultimately futile. Meaning it's a lose/lose scenario.
If only there were a 3rd way of only applying principles to those that share them and not others...
Is this like the state bar in the US, where a lawyer has to join to practice law? Basically a warped implementation of the medieval guild system.
So they compelled lawyers to swear an oath that they shared the political opinion of the bar in order to practice? Nothing authoritarian there, LoL.
Oh Canada, if only you had a real bill of rights and the guns for people to demand the government follow it. I guess you'll just have to settle for being Castro Jr.'s budget banana republic.
To answer your initial semi-rhetorical question, yes, it is. You must be a member and you must take this oath to practice in Ontario. You can have a law degree (JD, LLB, etc.) but you cannot represent a client in legal matters without LSO membership.
Fun fact, they used to be the Law Society of Upper Canada, but that wasn't woke enough. The name "implied superiority over Quebec," and alluded to a time of "First Nations oppression," so it was changed as little more than an opportunity for leftists to flex.
The Upper (Ontario)and Lower (Quebec) Canada nomenclature was also a quaint colonial relic in that Quebec is further north by latitude than Southern Ontario, making it confusing.
But the original Upper/Lower Canada distinction seems to arise that Toronto (York) and Kingston were further up river (actually on Lake Ontario) wrt the St. Lawrence, which would've been the main route of travel at the time.
Yes, these are clubs that you are forced to join in order to practice a profession. Kind of like a union that you're forced to join on account of having a job.
Basically, leftist BS. I'm sure a lot of people have excuses for why occupational licensing is necessary, but I believe in caveat emptor.
The Toronto Star version is paywalled but here's the op-ed posted elsewhere: https://archive.ph/0Q3K5
It doesn't mention JBP by name but he was by far the most famous voice calling it out.
something something conflict of interest, but sadly the law only applies when it's convenient for the regime
This should be tossed out. The judge that help spark the incident should not be preceding over it. That's fruit of the poison tree.
Yeah about that. It's rigged.