Law Society should be struck down

Earlier this fall, Ontario’s legal regulator, the Law Society of Upper Canada, notified its members — everyone permitted to practise law in Ontario — that they would be required “to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally.” The law society has said there would be no sanctions for any lawyer who refused to sign the pledge ... for the first year.

The statement has proved incredibly controversial, although not because anyone (seemingly) takes issue with the values articulated in it. People are concerned, rather, that the law society has exceeded the limits of its own statutory jurisdiction, and trampled on lawyers’ constitutionally protected freedoms of conscience and expression. Surprising missteps for a body of lawyers!

Certainly, the law society — and professional bodies generally — has a responsibility to regulate the conduct of its members in the practice of their profession. But the statement appears to do more than this. First, it requires lawyers to conduct themselves in a certain way in their private affairs, which the law society has no business regulating. Second, it requires lawyers to not merely comply with law society rules, but to also affirm that they agree with them, which is a form of compelled speech.

Fortunately, a number of lawyers have opposed the statement, first through public advocacy and now through legal action. Specifically, this week, Lakehood University law professor Ryan Alford filed a court application challenging its lawfulness.

We hope they succeed, and not just because the LSUC’s move would set a terrible precedent if allowed to stand. We agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are worthy aspirations, but we disagree wholeheartedly with the law society’s approach to achieving them. Diversity includes not merely diversity of appearance, but also diversity of thought. Inclusion demands tolerance not merely of cultural differences, but also of differing ideas.

Enforced ideological groupthink is antithetical to these goals. Even if every last lawyer agreed with its values, the Statement of Principles would still be wrong — wrong, that is, in principle.