myata

OK the definition of "normal" is that nobody in a "regulated profession" can have an individual private opinion different from that of their association expressed publicly. For the lifetime. Under the penalty of prohibition of profession. That's lawyers, teachers, doctors, architects, and the justice" will have nothing to do with it. In China North. Agree.

Any opinions? Over the entire course of the professional career no public opinions allowed? Normal? What reality are you in? How many moons do you see? This is another good demonstration though. Canada generally has a very vague idea of democracy and democratic rights. The good government has to be good... reasonably, and that's about it.

The reality always knocks back ?

All in all, another example that makes me wonder if the purported greatness of Canadian justice is only another self-appointed tale.

The court" appears to be saying just that (was assumed in the earlier post): "Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity." Every point here is weak logically and as a responsible exercise of a critical democratic function - that being a (publicly disclosed) member of a profession automatically means that every phrase or text, including clearly stated personal opinion has to be understood as a professional statement; - that intelligent citizens in this century aren't capable of distinguishing professional statements from personal opinion; that "trusted capacity" definition is absolute and has to be applied to all public expressions; - that the purported "risk of harm" was real or realistic and substantial; - that the measure prescribed by the college was necessary; reasonable and proportional. This is a failure of an essential democratic function, and duty. Nothing short of it, as far as I can see.

OK. One more. Does punishment without just cause amount to a persecution? Is the body that assigns sanctions and punishments required to prove that it is relevant, just, proportional and generally, appropriate, necessary and not arbitrary? Getting there.

Our good boy. And just think, never grows up!

Turned on your election"" lullaby? Sounds so sweet, yes?

Hanging of witches has been a standard practice since forever till very recently, in civilization terms. Some argument. Is it justified or arbitrary? Is there a just cause and can it be proven before an impartial and competent arbiter (not to be confused)?

Why are you people suddenly so obtuse when asked a simple and direct question? Does prohibition to practice amount to a punishment or, if arbitrary and unjust, persecution? Try again?

(fixed) Toy? Clueless? Imitation? Facade? The range is broad, the meaning, clear.

You said that? Or Constitution? Some rights are more important than other and allowed to be more easily abused? Prohibition to practice profession is a punishment. Punishment without just cause is persecution. This measure was applied to criminals against humanity. Only blind would not see it as such.

1. Perfectly legal. 2. Personal opinion expressed in a private space. 3. Without any provable connection to the formal duties. 4. Firing without cause is not the same as prohibition to practice profession 5. Prohibition to practice without just and sufficient cause amounts to persecution. So, persecution for expression of personal opinion. Then it has to be China North. And your pretty book doesn't mean much, obviously.

Like two year old "adults" in little baby politics? Those same ones for whom counting above two is an impossible challenge? Keep it coming, funny.

In China North. Q.E.D.

You agreed to become a slave. Signed a contract. Did that make slavery legal in China North? To the judge" smiling and clapping, happily ? What consti-- what was it? It has been this way since the time of Adam!

Not me: the pretty picture book called what was it, consti-- pation? no? Can any minor bureaucrat claim to relieve you of your constitutional right only because they thought it could do something? Who gets to oversee such cases that will happen regularly in a bureaucratic paradise? Who had the duty and paid outrageously by the citizens for performing it diligently and impartially?

Wth? Why couldn't they stop earning living and buy brioches? Who said that the price of being able to do what you like and trained for in China North is giving up the right for independent opinion on any matter? Who decided that? When and how has this happened? Anybody interested? No they clapped to absurdity failing their duty to protect the rights of the citizens against obvious abuse. The word is the the same, but it doesn't have same meaning. You can say "car", draw it even live size but try going anywhere in it. A facade. An empty shell with no substance inside.

So the college / company can understand and interpret those as having full control over an opinion expressed in the private setting. And the happy courts" happily looking away, only another prerogative what? I wonder where this happy bandwagon is heading? Interested?

Have no interest in changing one bobblehead for another and back again. Zero, no make it negative!

Canada is finally and almost daily shows itself for what it is and probably has been from day one: a little backwater authoritarian paradise. Nothing is what it looks and nothing works as it should in a real democracy. It has a thin guise of quasi-democracy and nobody ever cared to check what's behind, why? There are bears and mountains and that's pretty much all there is. Salmon is going.

What an outrageous bs is that? A professional can never express an opinion in public because of practicing the profession? Who said that? Who decided? Why do we have that funny picture book if any minor bureaucrat can send it flying with a strike of a pen?

How would it look from the outside I wonder? One great Canadian government pays the third world to move in; the next one, pays them still more to move out? How would that make any sense to the folks outside like must be some great thinking there, right?

For example: there's a Constitutional right of personal safety (everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person...). Someone pays you 1K salary to sign it away, completely. What next? They can keep you in a cell, not feed and kick multiple times daily, absolutely legally? It is not considered abuse and assault any longer? The parallel is entirely correct: a fundamental right cannot be withdrawn or signed away arbitrarily. Say high to picturebook parody of democratic courts. The restaurant is really good next door did you know?

Wrong: https://cpa.ca/practice/practiceregulation/