myata

OK, so Michael is fine with Justine sharing his opinions in public - no problems there, but not Peterson. It follows logically, that some of us have to be more qualified to express their opinions while others, threatened with losing their source of income. For the same or similar expression ("misogynists" and worse). Gotcha. Looks just like the coloring picture book. ... where though? In a first world democracy? Or in the China North?

Note that if we didn't have this Most Important Agenda Ever And Above All Else, the issue wouldn't exist. Nope, just none. Yes, we can (make something st(andar)d out of nothing, vacuum)

Well argumented.

Canada does not have independent and impartial institutions of justice. There are no effective limits to what governments can do.

Also constitutional rights of citizens. Also independent courts that understand responsibility to the citizens and democracy. Word is the same, not the same thing though.

If China only figured it out: split the communist party into China Conservative Communist Party, and China Liberal Communist Party; replaced open repression with bribery out of taxpayer pocket; echo chamber; and ostracism of dissidents (pocket media", already done); it could be a shiny G8 democracy, one of the best ever! Of course, keep fancy (and funny) election" counting. Done.

Are regulating bodies, as arms of the government allowed to violate fundamental rights of citizens, such as protection from arbitrary severe punishment? What was the coloring book for - pretty beavertale pictures, right?

In Canada? Two years of unlimited and unbounded arbitrary rule, with courts" looking the other way? Democracy is not a formal shell: it's principle; independence; and justice understood and shared by citizens.

Wrong. They are not "representing" anybody; they are working in the profession they trained for and are competent in; the "associations" do not own the profession; they have not invented it and have no reasonable or even plausible rights to own it, and legitimate opinions of everyone working in it. The times have moved way on since medieval practices; we do not burn witches anymore and "associations" cannot police legitimate opinion of citizens in a democracy. The legitimacy of these claims now is based only on complacency of the population and incompetence of the courts.

You're ready. Just replace "association" for "citizens committee", "party conduct office" and don't forget to grab the ticket on the way out.

You don't want to see it in plain sight? Someone spoke and they got acted upon by an "association"; threatening an effective prohibition of profession, in a democratic country but what's there to worry? Is it just a coincidence? Perhaps, possibly, but how would you know that? What exists here, trusted and independent enough to assure us that it's only an innocent coincidence? I would be interested to know it, genuinely.

That's pretty much sums it up. Better than China will have to do it.. if only some and for a while. Canada's idea of democracy.

Are there any limits to what fundamental rights can be assigned away under a "contract" with a mild or not so, incentive? Are there any limits to severity of punishments associations can impose on citizens, without any requirement of a due process? In a real democracy vs. China North?

Good excuse. You're welcome.

What works? The salary and the pension?

Absolutely. Why would they want to be different, what would be the incentive, in the race of the mediocre? They are also responsible and accountable, and not in a picture book for a few weeks but always. Some difference, there with an imitation democracy.

So you enter a contract "willingly" that lets put food on the table. A personal service contract. Done deal and no questions asked. In China North.

It is different, but not in an essential way. In a constitutional democracy, citizens have the right to express lawful opinion in private and where it is accessible to the public (note, it still takes a conscious act to subscribe to an account or follow it; it is not imposed on anyone). This right cannot be compromised by letting entities with zero democratic legitimacy undermine or negate it. That would be China North, in a thin disguise. You could have said 'czar' or general secretary deems appropriate and why not? Where it relates to fundamental rights of citizens democratic state would indeed intervene. Violations of fundamental rights cannot be allowed "by contract" or any other crook. Freedom from unjust and arbitrary severe punishment is one. Slavery is another. Why would you arrest and charge human traffickers? Victims signed "contracts". Do you have the answer, in the China North? Professional "behavior"? Problems with competence or quality of services? Or generally, behavior? Lawful expression of personal opinion, behavior? You may not know the difference, in China North.

It is a platform for expressing opinion. If there's nothing criminal in it, one cannot be a subject to severe punishment like prohibition of profession. In a democracy, doesn't apply to China North that understands it as a pretty coloring picture book. What "sanctioning"? Who sanctions? Do they have democratic legitimacy to assign severe punishments to citizens? Is there due process that ensures justice? Dunno but it just happens many times in the great China North.

Reading a story about Spanish head of soccer federation who screwed up majorly with an unwanted public kiss of a female player. Pretty much everybody tells him you have to resign. Teams, men and female, resign. Regional associations, non-confidence. FIFA, suspension. Criminal investigation, started. Even the government looking for ways to do something. The guy? Nope. Sorry, but you've got to stick with me. No other choices for, you sorry. But I apologized and promise to improve! Reminded me of something.. maybe you have seen it somewhere?

And to assign severe punishment to citizens who came to think (because the pretty picture book said something) that they have a constitution protecting them from arbitrary and unjust punishment

Prohibition of profession, for conduct unrelated to the professional competence and record, is a form of severe punishment. A fine is a punishment, but in this one is denied the ability to earn living in the profession they trained for and have skills. It is unbelievable that in a democratic state, severe punishments of citizens can be delegated to "associations" with no democratic legitimacy. How is it possible? Is it because the notions of democracy are some remote and superficial abstraction in the country that worships "good government"? Why hasn't anyone looked at it from this perspective? How else can one look at it, except in China North? The restaurant is really good though.

Profession is like "their house"? Like they own it, like the house, right? But you're up to something here, sitting in those chairs really easy to get confused about these things. Yes my private space on the Internet. You have to choose and act consciously to find anything that is there. It's nobody else's choice and responsibility but yours.

Oh someone great and wise is supervising our "conduct" now? What "Constitution", Latin? China North, welcome!

"Constitutional freedoms"? "Fundamental rights"? What is it, Latin? You know the restaurant is really good across the street, tried it yet?