myata

See, you aren't getting it. I can enter contracts without it. Why do we need it, if any piece of paper can nullify it? The freedoms are universal but they aren't unlimited. As an employee one takes an implicit or even explicit commitment to not directly harm the employer. That may extend to something you post in your free time. Most people understand that. You wrote "A is bad" someone passed it on, the director reads it, it is direct harm to the employer. But it does not extend to a privilege of the employer to monitor and censor all that you say and limit your right of expression for however remote reason or without any real one. You just don't get it that no authority, by whatever status or privilege gets that unlimited power or should, ever, in a real democracy.

OK - my Constitutional right "subject to a contract"? Why do we need it, the paper aka "Constitution" if all can be regulated by contracts it's inferior to and without it? Answer: because you never understood what it is, and what it means. Only a paper, right? Just like any other paper.

This is where you're wrong. Maybe because you simply don't understand that in a democracy (real one) rights are universal. They cannot be "signed off" nor any employer could require you to, that would be illegal. That's what happens when rights are written on a pretty paper hang somewhere high up but in reality every little bump can make their own "policy" and "tribunal". You didn't know, never got it and understood and then forgot again. Because you are not a democracy. Somewhere in between - to China?

It's an old and well known story. Powers that aren't checked by the reality, begin to create it. We think so you are. Because we can.

Go to ---ck your "better people". We already have "the greatest people" at a double (at the very least) cost to anywhere developed on the planet and look, the army, the health, the rcmp, the taxes all in the greatest state ever and look where it's all heading too. Just give me the choice to choose who I want to not the picture you show in the window, I couldn't care less how great it looks (to you). No, nothing less, just forget it. You do that? I'm impressed

Nope. I didn't trade you any rights for my life and my freedoms in full, unconditionally and irrevocably. These folk pretend to have some claim for it that they do not and cannot have. Also known as taking without permission; usurping; and other such words. Just because you may think that something of someone should belong to you, even if for their own good or other great purpose, it's still usurping.

Even simpler: the outcome of a selection cannot be better than the choice. You need a better choice to produce better outcomes. What is so difficult here?

important: ,while on the company's premises or otherwise executing direct employment functions. Who the h@ck are those people who think that they are some sort of our contemporary overlords, owning our time and lives? How did they get there? That one was easy at least: "because they can".

Governments that aren't checked and controlled by the citizens (who else?) regularly and effectively will not stop. The will (not) do that not out of spite, not even profit (though it plays into it, sure) but because it wouldn't know where to stop and how. Forgot or never needed to know. Smart people knew that in 1215 and 1789. We're living it and stumble on it again, and over, and again and just wouldn't learn. Couldn't even suspect that something could be not right here.

What a great example, couldn't refrain from comment though not much chance you'd get it (this is only based on the factual experience to date no offense, honest). So you get to chose one in 20 potato, average size of 3 cm with minimal (0.1 cm) variation. A citizen comes by and picks one, the nearest or by some other random factor (like some vague association with a potato song, no, news) You turn around and shout see, told ya! And you want them to vote? The choice matters (but you probably won't get it, again)

In China (only an example) not in a true democracy. In a democracy the right is guaranteed to all citizens and livelihood or job does not have to be the cost of exercising it. Just proved my point, again. In China, you will be an exemplary citizen, understand what is required from you before it's even stated by The Manager. Only because you are an esteemed if not yet honorary citizen of the virtual state of Great China. Generally, there's no conflict between competent execution of one's duties at a workplace and their opinions as of free citizens (conditions and reservations for professionals were stated earlier) expressed in their free time. Any cases where such conflict could be identified as real and present risk, would need to meet the same criteria we apply to cases where citizens rights are serious limited: robust and impartial consideration and questioning and a strong standard of confidence. Some shady witchhunt "tribunals" clearly don't meet that standard or anywhere near so why do we want to go there? That already happened so many times before so why couldn't we just learn? There's a reason though. Because they can. Because we let them, didn't care, didn't bother and never lifted a finger to make, create anything better, more intelligent or even common sense here.

You missing the point entirely. At issue is exactly that what they come up with restrictions, free of any controls or balances, regardless of constitutional rights of citizens or even openly violating them. That would be an obvious problem, in a democracy. In a real democracy this shouldn't be allowed. An employer or some sideways manager should not be able to reduce or compromise our core rights as free citizens. It's only because, in your mind you already heading to China, you fail to see and understand this obvious conclusion.

Absolutely not. If someone else doing a wrong thing how would it nullify a valid objection? It's their problem and in a robust democratic society they would be responsible for it (with outrageous, guessing, compensations) instead of passing it as absolutely unreasonable demands and/or restrictions on the members. Not hard enough? Restricting natural undeniable rights of citizens should not be considered whatever your problem is or may be. In a democracy that is. In China, sure.

Like in China, they do? The framework seems to be ready.

"Because we can". What?

That does not excuse it. "Wokeism" can be modern witchhunt. If it's illegal, prove it. If you disagree with it, argue with it and prove your point in an opened and fair dispute. And if you don't like it you shouldn't be able to use shady commissions and tribunals to damage or destroy people's lives.

Do we really need b-dy f-ing "tribunals" to allow us to have independent opinions? We will wake up in China one day. And why wouldn't we?

Absolutely. Two centuries on, a blind and mindless ride continues. All the mental effort so far went into conservation and preservation of the status quo, as of Day 1, intact and unchanged. Take the Constitution that just cannot be updated, simply no way (if anything, that seems to be the consensus). Think of the God that couldn't lift the rock They themselves created, yes, done and accomplished! Could it be because, as was pointed out eloquently, the request was for a "good" government, which isn't synonymous (especially if it's the governments itself that gets to judge its goodness) with accountable, responsible or even responsive? Unlike these qualities that are objective, clear and measurable, "goodness" can be in the eye of the beholder.

Quite certainly not, sorry. Voting and voting could mean different, even opposite things. The meaning is more important than the formal act. "Voting" as in "pushing a button (one of exactly two) connected, behind the wall, to nowhere" has exactly zero real meaning. And accordingly, it won't change a single millibit in the reality. Why the duty, then?

And one more time, here in Canada here the answer has three words: because-we-can. Because there's no checks, controls or limits to what they can do. First, federal government started doing that for a couple of decades. Now "professional associations". Then what? What will happen if some years from now you will post something "controversial" to someone, and they would read it and complain to your bank or doctor?

No. Everything is great exactly as it has been since the times of Adam. We don't need to change ANYTHING. Change is non needed really, such a can of worms, it's bad, BAD for you ANATHEMA!

That idea sure works as long as someone (you?) issues uncontested prophecies on the goodness of governments. In ancient Egypt they had high priests for that. Full circle.

OMG. Have you tried living a few years by the same norms? Does it need to be that difficult to get? There are different stages of broke, agree. Broke as in "collapsing" or "ground to a full halt" is worse than "no major improvements can be made anymore", "no serious problems solved in decades while new ones are piling". How far is in between? We will find out, shall we? It's not portrayed as "good" just the only one of the discussed that is compatible with the demands of a functional modern democracy. You can be Xi, run some funny-fancy-obscure "elections" and have your "democracy" and who could object? It's a matter of logic not judgement for that feel free to consult our friend here who has a natural sense of "good government". And again I believe no such thing. I do not want to change Canadian, or Chinese system only observe logical consequences of the status quo.

This is a complex issue of a very complex relation between self-identification and deeply established social norms that our chainsaw goodness trigger-happy government may have blundered into without a moment's reflection because they have nothing else left to do (or nothing else works anymore). No happy outcomes in such cases I'm afraid. Hundred years back it was new and progressive school system. "For their own good".

Understand, finally: a government that is better than the people does not exist and cannot exist. The dream of wise, benevolent "for their own good" all knowing government is millennia old (Plato?) but it never worked, ever. Every single time it ends in inefficiency, entrenchment, detachment from reality, self-exaltation, inefficiency, complacency, abuses of power, scandals, stagnation, crisis, accumulating and accelerating systemic crises and so on. If a government does not reflect the society, is not checked and controlled by it and cleaned by it regularly, it'll always lead to a worse outcome for the society. Only a matter of time. With the natural endowments, Canada could have been the richest, most prosperous and most advanced country in the world. It cannot hold leading positions in anything, inefficiencies and problems accumulating fast. A common, regular price of mental laziness and complacency.