Tom Marazzo wrote on X.com:
There are 136,000 licensed lawyers in Canada.
And yet, when it mattered most, the overwhelming majority couldn’t even recognize what was happening in their own country. They either hid in silence while the government trampled the Charter, or happily cashed in on the paycheques handed out to grease the machinery of oppression.
Out of the entire legal class, only a tiny handful had the courage, or the integrity, to defend Canadians’ rights. Outside of JCCF and a few scattered firms, the rest showed us that their oath to the law was just a line in a brochure.
But don’t worry – maybe the arrival of 15-minute cities will finally rouse even the drowsiest of lawyers from their slumber. Then again, you’ll know which ones to avoid… they’re the ones proudly listing their pronouns while your freedoms disappear.
Marazzo’s disappointment in the legal profession during the COVID-19 era lockdowns, and his concern about the continued reticence of lawyers in future challenges—such as what may come with the implementation of “15-Minute Cities”—are, in my view, reasonable. Especially when you consider the probable restrictions that could accompany the 15-Minute Cities movement, such as:
Loss of Personal Freedom: Restricting movement and daily activities within a limited area. Think about the current right to get in our cars anytime we want and go where we wish—visiting friends, shopping, sightseeing. We saw what can happen when unaccountable bureaucrats make lockdown rules and travel restrictions. Do we really want to revisit those kinds of limitations? Will the legal profession come to our aid then?
Increased Government Control and Privacy Breaches: The immense regulations that would be necessary to tightly control daily life would require extensive data collection. Already, we are heading toward a surveillance state that watches everything—from our travel to how we spend money. The 15-Minute Cities initiative could exponentially expand government oversight.
History is full of examples of government restrictions on travel, shopping, and work—from Ancient Rome, revolutionary France, to the Soviet Union—and, of course, the COVID-19 era. Government power is ultimately about control.
Without organized efforts to protect our fundamental freedoms, we will be in trouble. The legal profession has historically been a bulwark for individual liberty, but it has also failed at times. I am convinced that, without a change of course, the legal profession will do little to protect the vast majority of people suffering under oppressive state power.
It’s not because of anything peculiar to lawyers but because lawyers, like everyone else, often prefer convenience over conviction. We’re all in the same boat. However, the legal profession possesses the necessary tools to defend individual freedom—if only there was the conviction to use them for that cause.
Go to any law school campus today, or to any of the major law firms, and you will find a “groupthink” regarding what is and isn’t acceptable. There is an ingrained predisposition to conform to prevailing narratives. One’s career often depends, in no small part, on the ability to remain silent and not contradict the dominant cultural or intellectual narratives.
There is within the modern law school a rejection of anything higher than state made law (“positive law”) for authority. I, agree with Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s, “Warning to the West” where he stated:
“At the present time it is widely accepted among lawyers that law is higher than morality—law is something which is shaped and developed, whereas morality is something inchoate and amorphous. This is not the case. The opposite is true: morality is higher than law! Law is our human attempt to embody in rules a part of that moral sphere which is above us. We try to understand this morality, bring it down to earth, and present it in the form of law. Sometimes we are more successful, sometimes less. Sometimes we have a mere caricature of morality, but morality is always higher than law. This view must never be abandoned.”
A legal profession that limits itself to “positive law” is ultimately impotent in times of crisis. It cannot rise against the immorality of state law because the legal profession is not trained in morality. State law is deemed, in the minds of many, “moral” because it was passed by the appropriate sovereign body that has the authority to make law.
While there are courses in “ethics” in law school they are a far cry from the historical training that the legal profession was accustomed to in past centuries of Western Civilization when moral and immoral concepts vis a vis the state were hot topics of debate, reflection and analysis. Now we are in a time when a Christian law school is an anathema to the profession as Trinty Western University found out in 2018. Had Trinity been allowed such a school I suspect the ancient discussions would have resurrected.
This lack of deep reflection of what is moral and an ability to understand what Solzhenitsyn was talking about, is the Achilles Heel of the legal profession. It goes a long way to explain why there is such a lack of moral courage in the profession to stand against immoral state law that suppresses those who refuse the state narrative based on millennial principles of morality. I follow the school that just because a state makes a law that it is, by definition, “moral”.
When there is a financial and professional risk to being a non-conformist, the natural tendency is to keep quiet. Legal professionals, much like those in the medical field, education, media, intellectuals, or banking, are often unwilling to sacrifice their financial stability or social status among peers. Doing so may mean losing collegiality in the workplace, missing out on promotions, losing work, facing financial ruin, or succumbing to family pressure, not to mention potential loss of spousal support.
Lawyers frequently think in terms of “what’s next?” in their career—a partnership, a judicial appointment, a move into politics, seeking public office, or even leadership within a political party. All of these require a willingness to go along to get along, following societal trends at any given moment.
Historians know this mindset has played a significant role in many of the great upheavals throughout human history. Consider the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, or the rise of Fascism in Europe — in each case, professionals in various fields followed the prevailing wind of change for their own benefit and allowed countless people to fall to the whim of the maddening crowds.
The COVID-19 panic (yes, I call it a “panic”) was no different. Lawyers who stood up for those with conscientious objections to the vaccine were systematically marginalized in their workplaces. Dissenting opinions faced relentless ridicule, from boardrooms to law schools, and within the courts. Even our own Chief Justice openly supported the state imposition of emergency power against the people’s uprising against draconian bureaucratic lockdowns. Statements made in the heat of the moment—things that might be viewed differently with time—highlight how quickly opinions can shift.
Throughout history, the human experience shows that we tend to travel with the opinion herd. Thomas Sowell points out that the intelligentsia wields tremendous influence across professions—legal, medical, media, academic—and the filtering of information and discussion to meet prevailing narratives is widespread. This is why, in my view, there are so few individuals like Marcus Tullius Cicero, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther, John Wesley, or Mahatma Gandhi. From science to social policy, society often seems captive to the herd mentality.
Experience suggests that we should open our eyes to what is in plain sight and ask critical questions: Why are our streets filled with homeless drug addicts? Why can’t we question why bureaucrats rename streets and squares based on offenses from the past? Why do governments spend so much of our tax money to address perceived historical wrongs? Why do courts rule in favor of some groups over others? Why are professions so determined to destroy the careers of members who oppose bureaucratic social policies unrelated to professional competence? Why do we continue to pour billions into universities that promote policies of racism and victimhood (while categorically denying that they are), which threaten the fabric of society, rather than those that strengthen it? Why are we creating artificial intelligence that eliminates tens of thousands of jobs? Why do we allow tech oligarchs so much power over our future with so little say? Why do politicians say one thing before elections and do the opposite afterward? Why do we accept the denial of justice promised by our charters and constitutions?
In truth, the questions are endless given the complexity of this age. The more complex the world becomes, the more questions we must ask—and dialogue openly and honestly.
But frank conversation is difficult when a generation’s feelings are so fragile that they cannot face opposing opinions without becoming apoplectic with enrage We have raised an entitled people demanding every convenience and desire yet remain perpetually unsatisfied.
I appreciate the arguments in William Strauss and Neil Howe’s book The Fourth Turning. Their theory of recurring generational cycles in American history—comprising four types of “turnings,” each lasting about 20 to 22 years and totaling roughly 80 to 90 years—is fascinating. Howe’s recent book, The Fourth Turning Is Here, argues that the fourth generation is now confronting a time of major upheaval, involving institutional destruction and societal transformation.
I go a step further than Strauss and Howe—I believe our entire civilization is undergoing a “reset,” far beyond the scope of the Great Reset proposed by Klaus Schwab.
What we face, I suggest, is a total societal collapse and, hopefully, a rebirth. From my reading of history and human nature, I think this process is already underway—something that makes the Fourth Turning look like a church picnic. This isn’t limited to the United States or Europe; it’s a worldwide phenomenon poised to transform civilization itself.
In the U.S., I see the reshaping already in progress. It’s a process that bureaucrats and the intelligentsia once believed was impossible. Now, with a sense of unsettlement not felt since the Reformation or the fall of the Roman Empire, the scale of what is happening seems unprecedented. Even those historical moments were Eurocentric and small in comparison to what I sense unfolding globally.
We are living through an age of reimagining what it means to be human. The very definition of our identity is up for grabs. We face a battle—one that calls us back to the earliest stories of creation: Are we divine beings created by a higher power – God, or are we solely our own creation? To Whom are we answerable for what we do? What is our purpose?
These are fundamental questions that underpins everything—from artificial intelligence and robotic warfare to the struggle for narrative dominance. Control over the entire human enterprise in all its complexity is now at stake.
This is far larger than the Fourth Turning or the Great Reset.
The question is: Will we defend individual freedoms—the right to speak, worship God, and protect personal security and autonomy during what is about to befall us? Will the legal profession be there?
Or, amidst the upheaval or collapse—will we succumb to arbitrary or unjustified interference, harm, or violations of our bodily integrity, dignity, or liberty?
If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would say we will continue to have the legal profession, like all other professions, and most of the public continue to keep silent and avoid all interaction that would cause personal loss. Living a life of ease is much more comfortable than standing up and facing the cold winds of public and private disapproval for falling outside the accepted narrative that removes our fundamental freedoms.
Each failure to stand for those freedoms today edges us closer to losing them altogether.
Yet, the choice is ours. Do we have what it takes to stand up? History says we, the collective, do not. Individually, their will be a few but they can expect to be shot down. Only later generations will look back and say, “She was brave and courageous when she…..”
Of course, I may be wrong—history has a way of surprising us. Even if I am mistaken about an impending collapse, and the expected failure of the majority (including lawyers) to support fundamental freedoms, the principles of freedom remain vital. Whether we survive this crisis or not, defending those principles is essential if we are to survive.
Only to the brave few does our hope depend.
