Forcing someone to express an opinion that they do not hold “is totalitarian and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada, even for the repression of the most serious crimes.” (National Bank of Canada v. Retail Clerks’ International Union et al., [1984] 1 SCR 269 at p.296)

I am a first-generation Chinese immigrant. For 10 years I slowly wiggled out of the grip of communist propaganda. Canada is my home. I hold as an article of faith that Canada is the bastion of individual freedom. Canada is the last place I would have expected to see support for compelled speech. As a person of colour and someone who grew up under totalitarianism, I believe it is my duty to speak out against the LSO’s Statement of Principles.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) seeks to promote diversity, equality, and inclusion by requiring every licensee to adopt a Statement of Principles. There are some who see this as a positive step in promoting diversity in a largely ethnically homogeneous profession. Unfortunately, this view is misguided. We must look beyond the apparent goodness of the message to see the insidious nature of the SOP requirement. This is a state-empowered professional regulator who is seeking to make the expression of a specific set of beliefs a condition of membership.

Regardless of whether the individual licensee actually believes in these principles, the LSO wants to make the expression of these principles a condition of continued employment in the legal profession. This is compelled speech, and I cannot in good conscience support it.

It is the fundamental precept of liberal democratic society that the individual is sacred. No state, religion, or professional organization has the ability to dictate the beliefs of any single individual. Democracy cannot function without this autonomy; liberal society cannot function without this autonomy. What is guaranteed in the Charter is the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” – and for good reason: societies without the guarantee of individual freedom of thought are inherently unstable. Without freedom of conscience, societies degenerate, and atrocities are allowed to happen under the helpless watch of its citizens: the Uyghur imprisonment in China, the labour camps in North Korea, the gulags in the USSR and the extermination camps in Nazi Germany.

We have all swore the oath of “never again”. We have promised our ancestors, ourselves, and our future Canadians to never again allow the atrocities of the past to rear its ugly head. The first step to “never again” is to resist any incursion on our sovereign right to determine our own beliefs. A statute-created professional organization is attempting to regulate our freedom of conscience. No matter the goodness of its intentions, we must not allow this to happen.

Make no mistake, my friends, this is an uncomfortable stance to take. It will seem like you are fighting against diversity, equality, and inclusion. However it may appear, know that to oppose the SOP is not anti-diversity – rather, we are fighting for the very thing that makes diversity possible: freedom of conscience.

Diversity, equality, and inclusion cannot exist in a society that does not value individual self-autonomy. Those who first championed these social values could not have done it in a political environment that does not allow freedom of conscience. If you campaign for the Uyghur Muslims in China, you go to jail. If you raise awareness about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, you go to jail. If you go so far as to mention religious minorities such as Falun Gong, you go to jail. This is what happens in a society where a higher authority has the ability to decide what people cannot believe.

The truth is that in Canada, we are privileged to be able to have this discussion about diversity – freely, voluntarily, and without fear of reprisal. Our great privilege to have this conversation is rooted in our ability to decide our own beliefs as individuals. The Law Society wishes to upend this intellectual tradition by compelling lawyers to profess their conformity to a certain set of beliefs. This is unacceptable. A government-like organization with the ability to determine the livelihoods of legal professionals should not have the power to tell its members how to think.

Progress at the cost of individual autonomy is no progress at all. To those who support the Statement of Principles, know that this is the last time you can voice your opinions without fear for your career. If and when the next set of Principles conflict with your own personal beliefs, will you risk your livelihood to speak out, or will you write it to save your job?

The intentions and end-goals of the SOP are good, this I do not deny. However, the SOP is not a case of “the ends justify the means”. The LSO’s policy seeks to undermine the same freedoms that allow us to fight for diversity in the first place. We, as future lawyers, have a duty to safeguard the foundation on which Canadian society is built: rule of law, freedom of conscience, and individual autonomy. If lawyers lose their freedom of belief, what is left for the rest of society we are tasked to protect?