Why the Statement of Principles?

The statement of principles has created a divide, a line, and for many is forcing them to choose a side.

It may not be a bad thing.

The debate has awoken many of us, forced us to pay attention or get involved, maybe even run for Bencher.

What it’s not about

The initiatives of increasing equity, diversity and inclusion are not the issue. Race, gender, and feelings of validation for a narrative (our unique individual stories) are not the issue – or at least not for me.

In arguing against the statement of principles I am not arguing for racism, genderism, ageism, sexism, or discrimination, and I find it hard to believe that anyone against the statement of principles would argue in favour of discrimination of any kind.

That’s just not reasonable.

The issue

The issue, simply put, is an overarching concern that the Law Society of Ontario can mandate our beliefs and require us to promote an ideology or profess a belief. It doesn’t matter if the mandated belief is good or bad – ie. world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth.

Did anyone stop to ask if the statement of principles was a good idea or what the consequences would be three to five years from now.

No current Bencher dared ask “why is this a good idea” for fear of being called [insert something bad which could ruin their firm’s image or a career].

Was there any dialogue before the vote to the Statement of Principles was enacted?

Hanging On

Are those that created the EDI initiative hanging on too tight to an idea? Are they failing to see the difference between individual rights vs. group or class rights?

As lawyers, we are charged with challenging, advocating and protecting those less able to do so for themselves, and that comes with a responsibility to question “is this good”.

I am not criticizing any lawyer that voted for the statement of principles, I am not calling them names, nor calling them out. I am simply sharing my belief that the statement of principles is a bad thing. I do not hate them and can respect their opinion – that is responsible and professional and acknowledges that dialogue is good.

Are you afraid to share your thoughts for fear of being called out, or fear of being non-politically correct? Is that right? Is that conducive to dialogue and growth?

Let it go

It’s ok to question whether you got caught up in the good belief that discrimination is bad and that we need to maximize ways to eliminate all forms of discrimination. But it is also ok to let go of a bad idea and pivot, to recognize that doing so is not going to change who you are or what you believe or stand for.

History has many examples of how mandating people espouse a belief and promote it has harmed others – assimilation and other acts in the name of “good” went too far by today’s standards, but at the time were believed good and righteous, and part of changing the world for the good.

The EDI initiatives in this “time” and this “place” seem good and are the justification behind the statement of principles.

Without the EDI initiative would the statement of principles survive? If we were mandated to promote something less laudable, would the SOP survive?

Are we agreeing with the SOP because it is politically correct and failing to see the power we are trading or giving the LSO?

Its up to you

Vote, speak, share your thoughts or do nothing – but either way don’t complain, blame or play the victim when the dust settles.

Take action, talk to others, figure it out, pick a side, change your mind – its ok.

We are all in this together.

Joseph Chiummiento
Bencher Candidate