Glenn Blackett is an Alberta lawyer representing Roger Song in his lawsuit against the Law Society of Alberta. Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, is receiving praise from the freedom community for its apparent protections against woke indoctrination and censorship. I too had been eagerly anticipating effective government intervention. Unfortunately, I find myself the lone bearer of bad news, very bad news. The Bill, in its current form, includes some fundamental errors which are so significant that, unless remedied by the three amendments I suggest below, this apparent glass of freedom wine is, in fact, a poisoned chalice.I’ve considered less dramatic metaphors, including “the Bill is merely rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic,” but milder metaphors are misleading. Bill 13 is, rather, the iceberg..MACLEOD: Pipeline promises, political games: Why Ottawa’s ‘lifeline’ to Alberta oil always ends in betrayal.Rather than rein in ideological regulation, the Bill instead grants regulators new powers to mandate ideological education (section 7) and authorizes wokeness (section 8).This will strike many ears as incredible because the Bill seems to do the opposite. The devil is in the details. Let me first acknowledge the two main things the Bill does achieve and explain how insignificant these actually are. I hope this demonstrates how carefully the Bill must be read to understand its actual effect. First, in response to Jordan Peterson’s prosecution, the Bill limits regulators’ ability to censor speech. But then, the details of that limit are understood, and we see the Bill actually offers little real protection. .For example, the Bill does not actually prohibit misconduct proceedings against professionals for their private speech; it only prohibits certain punishments being imposed at the end of those proceedings (section 5(2)). Further, the Bill does not limit prosecutions for on-duty speech. It is good to ensure a doctor, for example, is not gagged from expressing personal viewpoints when off-duty. But, from the patient’s perspective (and, therefore, as it relates to the integrity of the profession itself), gagging the doctor in her clinic is far more destructive. .JOHNSON: Remember the ArriveCAN scandal? New ‘bait and switch’ report exposes systemic problem in federal procurement.It is in the doctor’s clinic, after all, that I rely on her to tell me what, in her independent professional judgment, she actually believes to be true. If she believes puberty blockers pose health risks to my child, I would like to hear that. If she believes a vaccine has limited benefits or material risks, I would like to hear that too. I only trust the doctor insofar as she has freedom to tell me these things while on-duty. The Bill’s second apparent achievement, perhaps in response to the lawsuit of my client Roger Song, is to prohibit mandatory training in “cultural competence, unconscious bias, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.”This also looks like a win on the surface. This would seem to prohibit, for example, the woke mandatory training imposed on Alberta lawyers by the Law Society of Alberta (LSA) called “The Path.” .While it hardly matters (for reasons explained below), I am not sure the Bill does even that because the Bill does not define cultural competence. The term has two basic meanings: the knowledge of a racial minority’s purported culture to improve communications; and the adoption by professionals of a “radical” transformative political agenda to dismantle systemic discrimination embedded in our laws, Constitution, and institutions, including medical science and ethics.This second meaning might be stated as a culturally competent professional does not expose racial minorities to Western things, including reason and science, the rule of law, freedom, or democracy, because those things cause harm. This explains why “The Path” told lawyers to work to increase the racial segregation of indigenous Canadians. Exposure to Western legal systems, lawyers were taught, causes indigenous Canadians trauma..MCCRAE: Brodie vs. Chief Casimir in the Kamloops ‘mass graves’ controversy.Maybe this sounds too weird to be true. It is certainly weird, but unfortunately, all too true. This is explained in written legal argument and in columns here, here, here, here, here, and here. Regulators and the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta acknowledge, mostly, just the first meaning of cultural competence. If the Bill only prohibits cultural competence in that sense, then it does not prohibit mandatory education in the second, more pernicious, sense. Like the Bill’s restrictions on censorship, its restrictions on mandatory education are weak and narrow. Now for the really bad news. .As I just described, the Bill prohibits mandatory education in “cultural competence, unconscious bias, and diversity, equity, and inclusion,” but and this is the all-critical but, the bill does not ban these things in any other way. This is devastating for a Bill intended to prohibit woke regulation. To understand the implication of banning wokeness in only one way (mandatory education), consider this. If I say there are “no snacks after 11,” I necessarily imply that snacks are allowed, just not after 11. The Bill says “no wokeness in mandatory education,” which necessarily implies that wokeness is allowed, just not in mandatory education. The prohibition itself signals that wokeness in professional regulation is permitted..McTEAGUE: From backroom deal to boondoggle: This is no way to build a pipeline.While the Bill prohibits wokeness in one way, it impliedly authorizes wokeness in every other. The Bill inserts ideology into the legislation – where there is none at present.I will briefly respond to one obvious objection: the Bill seems to ban wokeness entirely at section 6. The problem, as I explain here, is that section 6 does not work. It bans things which sound woke, but are not actually woke, and bans things which are actually traditional Canadian values, like morality and merit. Also note the Bill does not apply to “the board of directors” (Schedule 2, subsection (t)(iv)). This seems to mean the Bill does not apply to the LSA’s “Benchers”, who actually run the show. .So, freedom lovers, stop your celebrations and put down the glass, at least until the poison is removed. This can be done by three simple but essential amendments.First, replace the ban on “principles” with a ban on wokeness by use of proper labels: critical race theory, critical legal theory, postcolonialism, cultural competence, diversity, equity, and inclusion, decolonization, and “all related and other postmodern theories and objectives.”Second, ban regulators from pursuing any and all political objectives, defined as: “an objective to change, directly or indirectly: the law, including the Constitution, statutes, subordinate legislation, the common law, or the principles of equity; the state or government; the legal system; the economy; or society.”.SLOBODIAN: Is Canada secretly preparing for World War III? Inside the ‘three-to-five-year’ war warnings, shocking the military.Finally, ban all forms of “continuing professional development” introduced by regulators post-2000. I leave you with one last thought. There will be one simple test of whether or not Bill 13 bans wokeness. Once passed, does the LSA remove wokeness from its new definition of “competence” (i.e. “Cultural Competence, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” and “Truth and Reconciliation”)?If the LSA retains its woke definitions of competence, I’ll supply my dreadfully unsatisfying “I told you so.”Glenn Blackett is an Alberta lawyer representing Roger Song in his lawsuit against the Law Society of Alberta.
