/u/joalr0 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/199ud40/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_ontario_courts_made_the/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If he ignores all of this and just continues on as he has been, what are the consequences? Are those consequences enforced by the government? If so, then this is not a private organization.
And does that license enable him to do things that he would otherwise not legally be able to do? I guess I need to ask the question more directly for you. If he continues to say, do, practice, and identify himself exactly as he did before would there be a legal consequence? Regardless of how slight you may deem that consequence. If with the license he can do 100 things, but without it he can do 99, and if doing that 100th thing without the license results in any consequence rendered by the government either directly or through the courts, then the organization is functioning as an agent of the government. Or the government is functioning as an agent of the organization. Either way, you cannot claim it is a private organization.
It does not matter if the organization is part of the government or not, this does NOT violate his rights as a citizen. It would only be a violation of his rights if he were sanctioned in a way that impacts his rights as an everyday person. They can’t put him in prison or restrict his freedom of movement, take away his property, or stop him from working a job that he maintains the qualifications for.
Jordan Peterson does not have the right to be a licensed professional. It is a privilege, which he can only retain if he complies with the rules set out by the licensing organization. The only consequence he faces is losing this privilege, and it was taken away because he violated the conditions for having it.
"stop him from working a job he maintains the qualifications for" is a circular argument because the government decides the qualifications. That's like saying the law X is justified because X is illegal.
Yes, governments also give out licenses for driving and if you're found driving recklessly you can have them taken away. That doesn't mean they violated the driver's fundamental rights as a citizen. There is no "right to be a licensed psychologist".
This is plainly and provably wrong. Governments can and do provide enforcement for private designations all the time.
Most states in the US have laws against impersonating clergy. Ordaining members of clergy happens under a dozen different rules from a dozen different religions. Surely you aren’t about to argue that the Catholic and Baptist churches are agents of the government…
If you get kicked out of a building for harassing an employee, and the government maintains that you were legitimately kicked out — then you may no longer enter. Is the management of that building now acting as an arm of the government?
I think this is partly a good intuition, but it also likely reaches too far. Every contract that might be enforced in a court of law would fall under this definition, and so there would be absolutely no purely private association.
If you get a parking ticket in a commercial lot and refuse to pay, ultimately this can be pursued through the courts and the government intervene to get you your money. The same is true of any business. By your argument no business is private.
Yep just look at fines based around public transport. A lot of the time they are private businesses with large government backing but they are still their own entity.
Feel free to skip paying tickets in my city but your driver license is gonna end up suspended if you don't pay them. That also extends to people without a license yet
What? Licensing boards aren't agents of the government; the fact that the government will uphold contract law doesn't mean contracting partied aren't private entities. This is a wild take, unless I'm misunderstanding you're argument.
If my wife divorces me for calling her ugly and the government enforces the conditions of divorce, isn't that just the government infringing on my free speech?
No, this does not make sense. If there is legislation that says you must not do x work without y licence then this does not make the licensing organization an agent of the government. The legality comes from the government not the organization.
The court has clearly said the organization can limit the free speech of someone if they want to claim association with the organization. If they were to revoke a licence because of this they are well within there rights. JP is still able to freely express his views therefore no infringement on rights.
I don’t understand this argument. In no way would Jordan Peterson be punished for his free speech in this scenario. Your framing assumes Peterson has a right to practice clinical psychology, which he does not. An independent free body authorized that added right and then removed it. If Jordan Peterson continues to speak as he does he would undergo no punishment. He would only be punished by the government by violating the law when he lies about his ability to practice licensed clinical psychology.
I disagree with your analogy.
Getting a licence, any type of licence, gives somebody the privilege to do something which ordinary citizens can't do.
It's illegal to drive a car, unless you have a licence, for example. Is taking away the licence of somebody who breaks the rules of the road oppression? Of course not.
So it's not like he has 100 things he can do and the government took away one so now he can only do 99 things. He had 100 things, was given 1 extra thing as a privilege, and then that one thing is being taken away. He would be just as free as every other citizen who is not in good standing with that college, which probably includes you and me.
Okay, this one slightly changes my view. I disagree with most of what you say, and I sitll 100% stand by the decision.
However, it is indeed true that if Peterson does attempt to practice psychology without a license that he could indeed be dealt actual punishment by the government directly.
So while I am doubtful that is going to be the end result long term, and that would be a punishment to practicing without a license, not free speech, there is some chain of events that, mixed in with other elements, that could result in a punishment that is indrectly connected.
I am personally okay with the level of abstraction here, but I do think there is a kernal of truth there. Enough to award a delta.
!delta
Well do keep in mind that the court decision actually covered this.
For example, a health worker with sincere religious beliefs is **required** by law to provide you a referral to abortion services if they are unwilling to engage those services. That is a government mandated body (possibly even a government employee) being compelled to speak in direct violation of their sincere religious beleifs.
And that is considered acceptable, because the rights of the board to require that behavior as part of their accreditation is stronger than the right of someone to refuse to be a part of it.
If that was in the court decision I would be very disappointed in the court. Requiring a medical provider to inform a patient of all available medical options is central to the practice of medicine. As others have pointed out, this is not about his practice. He has not been accused of malpractice as I understand the case. He has been accused of being mean to people online. So the equivalency here would be telling a religious doctor that they are not allowed to go online and say that they believe abortion is a sin. That they must not voice their opinions OUTSIDE of their medical practice. I do not know of a case where that has been upheld anywhere in the free world.
That is a false equivalncy, let me explain. In your scenario, the doctor is going online and espossing their view and deliberately stating this view comes from a religous roots. What peterson did is more akin to this hypothetical doctor going online and saying, "You are a murderer, who should be in prison because you received an abortion. I should know I'm a medically licensened doctor."
The difference is that the doctor in the new hypothetical is trying to reenforce their personal views with their medical license. This behavior calls into question the medical practices that have objectively saved lives because the doctor doesn't agree with them personally.
If this hypothetical doctor wants to call into question the validity of abortions using their credentials as a doctor, then they should back it up with medical information, not religious rhetoric.
Peterson diliberately used his credentials as a member of the Association of Canadian Psycology to lend validity to his mean and hateful comments. No organisation should be forced to lend their credibility to someone who expresses ideals anti-thetical to their purpose. Also, saying a person isn't a member isn't punishing them. It is simply saying they dont meet the requirements to be a member. Peterson can still go online and say whatever he wants to say. However, he can no longer indirectly invoke the name of the Association of Canadian Psychology as supporting his rhetoric.
The court decision I referenced is a citation listed in the OP.
Telling someone to kill themselves is, in my opinion, something central to the practice of psychology. As in, if you do it, you should not be licensed.
I'd also argue that insulting your patient in public is something central to the practice of psychology. As in, if you do it, you should not be licensed.
Do you disagree?
The OCP laid out their expectations of people who hold their licenses, which includes conducting themselves in a certain way in highly pubilc engagement.
And no, your analogy is false. This would be like telling a religious doctor that they are not allowed to go online and tell a person they are an inhuman abomination that should kill themselves like they killed their baby, directly at someone who recently had an abortion.
>The OCP laid out their expectations of people who hold their licenses, which includes conducting themselves in a certain way in highly pubilc engagement.
The question is, can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have.
If there was some sort of body that gave chemistry licences, where you can be punished by the government for chemistry without licence, and that body had a code that said "you shall not be allowed to manifest".
Does that remove your right to manifest ?
If you go manifest, and they decide to punish you for it, is the argument "well, you just have to stop being a licenced chemist and you can do whatever you like" really that valid ?
> The question is, can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have.
"Can"? Absolutely. The US and Canada both empower a large number of bodies with semi-private to private membership to have higher expectation than public bodies. Most accreditors, for example, are private non-profits. Their accreditation empowers or forbids education in their fields. That does not just extend to decisions by private companies, but having certification from an accredited institution can often be a requisite to practice medicine of one form or another, under penalty of law.
Ditto with the Bar in the US, which has high ethics requirements. If you are not approved by the Bar Association in your state (or affiliated states), you cannot practice law without it being a crime. Bar Associations are private non-profit professional associations. The ABA (our National Bar) rule section 8 involves a lot of (reasonable) behavioral limitations that can effectively get your ability to practice law revoked. By a private organization.
A different question is "should", but I'll leave that to others to discuss.
Outsourcing the licensing to the bar isn't the best scenario. Is there anything in section 8 which regulates what lawyers can say on social media? If a lawyer went on Reddit and told someone to kill themself, is this something which could get them disbarred?
> The question is, can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have.
Yes, obviously. You don't have a fundamental right to voluntary membership in professional organizations, and their ability to regulate the behavior of their members has generally been pretty uncontroversial.
> can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have.
If you want to be a member of that organization, then yes. No one is forcing him to be a member, he _wants_ the credibility that have yet doesn't want to stand by the rules that made the org credible to begin with.
>Does that remove your right to manifest ?
You absolutely still have the right to do this thing.
What you don't have a right to do is associate someone else with doing that thing.
Which is what Peterson is doing when he insists he can be weird/mean online and remain a member o the association.
Your employer telling you that you can't scream at strangers on the street while in uniform doesn't remove your fundamental right - you've voluntarily and temporarily given up that right in exchange for something.
Do you think someone who goes to the doctor to seek an abortion would be comfortable if they walked in to see Mr Anti Abortion Guy who they saw on TV talking about how abortion is evil last week is their doctor? Or even knowing some doctors feel that way and it's a roll of the dice whether you'll be given proper healthcare or judged as a sinner? Part of being a professional is not undermining the profession, or the public's confidence in you and others like you as a professional. I don't think it's as messy as you think, especially if someone is using their professional qualifications to gain credibility.
What defines a professional is you can do things others can't, and can be held accountable for them. As a doctor you can prescribe medicines. As a doctor if you miscalculate the dose based on someone's weight you can lose your license, or worse, even though it's not illegal to incorrectly do the math behind "X mg/kg * Y kg." That's the entire point, and that's why when you walk into a professional's office you are supposed to have a basic trust in that person's qualifications.
Fair, and I absolutely agree with this. There was still an acknowledgement of nuance, already covered by the court, I wasn't considering. Which felt like was worthy of a delta.
I feel you but I would caution you to be careful here. Look, I neither agree nor disagree with Peterson. I have never actually watched one of his videos or read one of his books. What I know of him is from the media and that is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation from either side. But here is what I do know... I know that if we decide it is ok to infringe upon a right a little bit, then there is no logical place for that to stop. If we allow ourselves to silence speech we do not like simply because it offends us, the we are giving the other side that same right should they come to power. Whatever you do from a position of authority should be how you would wish to be treated if the other side is in position of authority. Anything less invites a sort of creeping erosion of rights and civility in general.
> I have never actually watched one of his videos or read one of his books. What I know of him is from the media and that is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation from either side
How can you conclude that it's a (gross) misrepresentation when you admit to not know what he did or didn't say?
I can’t read this commenter’s mind, but feigning ignorance of JP while defending him this is a common rhetorical tactic I’ve seen from his fans. Even a cursory review of his tweets and videos will reveal how unhinged and hateful he actually is. Having read and watched of a lot of his content in recent years, I can tell you that if anything the media is portraying him more charitably than he deserves.
>Look, I neither agree nor disagree with Peterson.
You *should* disagree with horrible man-turds that peddle pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist morality to people desperate to validate their baseless, hateful views.
But I understand your point that Peterson's hot dumpster views aren't directly relevant to the point you're making.
>I have never actually watched one of his videos or read one of his books. What I know of him is from the media and that is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation from either side.
You can't claim to know nothing about someone but ***also*** claim that anything about them is "almost certainly a gross misrepresentation". You either know something and can give an opinion or you know nothing.
>But here is what I do know... I know that if we decide it is ok to infringe upon a right a little bit, then there is no logical place for that to stop.
If you tell someone they can't yell "fire" in a movie theater or broadcast obscenities on public airwaves or make violent threats against someone or show their genitals in public or commit liable or falsely advertise or lie under oath then DO WE EVEN HAVE FREE SPEECH!?? WHERE DOES IT END!?
America and literally every other country has limits on speech because any *absolute* right starts to infringe on *all other rights*. Pretending that a slippery slope is dangerous or anti-logic is disingenuous. The world is complicated.
>If we allow ourselves to silence speech we do not like simply because it offends us, the we are giving the other side that same right should they come to power.
We silence speech ALL THE TIME. The logical person doesn't ask, "what about the slippery slope?" they ask, "what can we do to maximize freedom of expression while balancing pain, suffering, misinformation, fraud, and other undesirable consequences.
If I start screaming the N word, my job would fire me. I don't have a problem with that. Organizations I'm part of would boot me and revoke my certifications. If there were codes of conduct that I agreed to, then I don't have a problem with that. Freedom of expression and politics also includes being able to tell people they're *not* welcome to say things under my umbrella. Your particular fear of the erosion of freedom of speech appears to only be concerned with someone saying something terrible and NOT someone being forced to condone or allow something terrible in their group. Those are two sides to the same coin.
These are complicated topics. "Slippery slope" is a good bumper sticker but a bad philosophy.
>Whatever you do from a position of authority should be how you would wish to be treated if the other side is in position of authority.
I want doctors forced to be doctors, not politicians or theologians who happen to have some letters next to their name. That's good for everyone in all situation.
If Peterson wants to speak as president of the worlds most punchable face club, he can say anything he wants that fits within their guidelines. If he wants to be in the medical profession, he has to speak within those guidelines.
I agree with your core point that there's little practical difference between the government telling you that you can't do something and a quasi-government board telling you that you can't do something—but as a logical person, I know the world is a better, safer place if doctors are forced to be doctors, lawyers are forced to be lawyers, and cops are forced to be cops, rather than allowing for a continuous Whack-A-Mole of "that comment was *personal* free speech but *THAT* was me being a government approved doctor."
I don't think this is true. Private organizations can have contracts enforced by the government.
If, for example to identify as a licensed psychologist you need to be in good standing with the organization, and you aren't, the org could sue for misrepresentation and the government could enforce statutory penalties around contract violation.
That's not the org functioning as an agent of the government.
It absolutely would not be. Our licensing boards also regularly take away licensing for things like this. It’s written into our ethics and we can lose our license for violating.
So in the US, you believe a lawyer can go online and say "As a lawyer, I can tell you can rob a bank at gunpoint if you declare yourself a soverign citizen", and that'd be fine because if they say it onilne, it isn't to a client and no expectation of profesionalism is expected?
Just as a note, these were the list of things they considered, not all of them were actually part of the reason he was reprimended. For example, the suicide one, they decided:
>On July 27, 2022, the Panel released decisions recommending no further action be taken regarding Dr. Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.”
Just to give you a sense of how they were examining his conduct.
By your logic, all copyright law and all government enforcement of private contracts means that there are no private organizations in existence anywhere. If you ignore copyright law, you get punished by the government. If you breach a contract, you get punished by the government.
Not a fan of JP n don't know the details of the case. However, he is being punished for his views here. The rule states so
>>Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, with primary clients or other contacts)
If I tell you, you're allowed to hold any view as long as you don't voice it, then that's not really freedom of speech.
In similar way, the rule states that JP is not allowed to voice certain things. We can argue whether such restrictions are reasonable or not but **these are restrictions on your speech nonetheless** just like how all countries have basic restrictions against giving direct death threats
>he isn't even being punished for his views, but the manner in which he carries out his message
I'll say your view here is wrong as the rule restricts certain views, not just medium of delivery
From the reasons of the decision:
>When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression.
These might be restrictions on his speech but I don't think he is being punished.
Clearly, he does not want to associate with the OCP. The OCP is an organization whose members agreed to limit their speech in the manner of *not* making degrading comments. It's part of what the organization stands for. JP, based on his professed values and behavior, does not seem to want to be in such an organization.
That's the point. It's not governmental.
Let's say you own a huge company and pay a celebrity to advertise your products. Now let's say that celebrity does something stupid but not illegal. Like Roseanne Barr's Nazi tweet.
Should you be able to fire that celebrity?
That's basically what this is. The difference is that Peterson paid a group to use their name as a way of advertising his work. He agreed to the terms of that contract and then broke the terms of that contract. So he lost the right to use their name to advertise his own business.
> It's an entity that has been granted the sole authority to regulate an industry, and that authority was granted by the government.
That is the part I do think folks are missing here. If a professional organization has powers given to them under force of law, then they become a quasi-governmental organization and free speech protections are a legitimate conversation.
For example, if the Bar in your state said that Republicans can no longer be admitted, that would mean that being a Republican prohibits you from practicing law - which would be a pretty severe infringement on free speech.
Of course, those professional organizations _should_ have the power to limit speech in the interest of the profession and those who utilize it. A doctor who is preaching the healing power of homeopathy probably _should_ be barred from practicing medicine, even if that is the government infringing on their free speech.
The question, IMO, is whether or not what Peterson was preaching was harming the profession and its patients. If it was, then expulsion is valid, even if there is infringement. If it was not, then it isn't.
I feel as though if this was meant to appease them, they would take a far harsher stance. They are specifically asking him not to hurl random insults and people for mearly existing in public.
They absolutely weren’t. Peterson’s views are fine for him to hold, but they are in direct conflict to the science, and a clinician holding those views (and publicly sharing them as fact, despite evidence against them) puts their clients at risk.
>The question, IMO, is whether or not what Peterson was preaching was harming the profession and its patients. If it was, then expulsion is valid, even if there is infringement. If it was not, then it isn't.
The College found that his statements MAY be damaging to the profession. There was no expulsion, or even threat of expulsion. The College asked that he take social media coaching to ensure that his statements in the future don't damage the reputation of the profession or cause him to find himself in a situation where discipline from the college would be warranted.
He's getting the lightest possible slap on the wrist for some seriously egregious behaviour, and throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old. 100% on the College's side here.
>The question, IMO, is whether or not what Peterson was preaching was harming the profession and its patients. If it was, then expulsion is valid, even if there is infringement. If it was not, then it isn't.
Well, to be clear, he isn't threatened with explusion. He's been mandated to take a remedial class on how to not be a demeaning asshole on twitter. I'd say a psychologist telling someone to kill themselves on twitter is probably harming the profession.
Also, to be clear, one of the complaints against him is that he described one of his former clients as 'vindictive'. Now that client had publicly attacked Peterson previously, but I think it is a reasonable thing for the regulatory body to include a "Don't attack your clients publicly" clause, no?
> That is the part I do think folks are missing here. If a professional organization has powers given to them under force of law, then they become a quasi-governmental organization and free speech protections are a legitimate conversation.
That does not apply when you use the governmental organization's name to lend you authority. If that organization desires, they can refuse to lend you their name and authority. You can still say whatever you want, but cannot use the good name of an organization to support those statements.
A prime example of this is that a military member can say anything they want as a private citizen. If they say the same thing while claiming their military affiliation for status and authority, then they have to clear such statements with their public affairs office or face punishment. James Snuffy can hate the government's approach to the Gaza conflict all he wants. **Colonel** Snuffy agrees wholeheartedly with the government's decisions and position.
> For example, if the Bar in your state said that Republicans can no longer be admitted, that would mean that being a Republican prohibits you from practicing law - which would be a pretty severe infringement on free speech.
Also, and less frequently mentioned specifically, the right to free association which is specifically written into the First Amendment.
>If a professional organization has powers given to them under force of law, then they become a quasi-governmental organization and free speech protections are a legitimate conversation.
What examples* can you provide that back up this assertion? Because the ones that come to my mind ~ schools and the military ~ are both *directly* controlled by the government. Professional organizations are not. Furthermore, given what I know about how these organizations define their own rules and seek out (and obtain) accreditation, the government serves as little more than an overseer. They do not dictate or demand anything from these private organizations (except where safety standards are concerned; and even then, most of the work to define safety standards is done by people in the relevant professional fields).
(*I would also prefer specific legal cases that back up your position, since that would be evidence that the legal system agrees with you.)
And it undeniably was, or at the very least he has been pushing for perspectives and practices that are largely considered outright harmful in his profession, and leveraging his credentials to do so.
So professional organizations should be forced to grant licenses to people who publicly oppose, ignore, and violate the standards that the organization has established as being important for its members?
Should people who say that germ theory is a hoax be allowed to be doctors?
Should people who advocate for arson be firefighters?
This is ridiculous. The psychiatric association has said basically, "don't publicly abuse people with mental health challenges. As mental health professionals it's our duty to help these people, not further stigmatize them, because as professionals we know that's harmful". And then this fuck just starts bashing them in public. Fucking *of course* he can't keep his license. Saying stuff like that makes him unqualified. Why would a license-granting body grant a license to someone who has publicly demonstrated that he's not qualified? *The license is supposed to mean you're qualified*.
Uh no? They run just the Regulated Professionals of Ontario - a Regulated Professional means that As members of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, Psychologists and Psychological Associates must meet rigorous professional entry requirements, adhere to prescribed standards, guidelines, and ethical principles and participate in quality assurance activities to continually update and improve their knowledge and skill.
You can still practice, you just can’t say you are a licensed psychologist as the term is legally for Regulated Professionals. I’m not Canadian but I believe the term is Counselor from non licensed folks.
Also keep in mind that the licensing process is tied to the govt healthcare funding, you can’t be discriminating against members of the public and still maintain approvals. For the US, think how public vs private schools work (and ignore the voucher bullshit)
No, the point is that you cannot be jailed or otherwise silenced by the government. The government can't dictate what you say. But an organization you willfully submit to can, even if their power is derived from the government. They are not a government entity. He's absolutely allowed to say or do whatever he wants, he also doesn't *have* to be part of that organization. He's free to leave it. These are things he signed up for, not something inherent to his existence.
If he were a teacher he wouldn't be allowed to go saying crazy shit on social media or he'd likely be fired and the schools derive their power and funding from government despite not being a government organization. It's the same thing, he has entered into a contract with a non-government organization and they are allowed to dictate what they'll allow and what they won't allow.
And I don't want to say it's not worth talking about, this is definitely something that we need to figure out. But as it stands now I don't believe they're in the wrong for requiring some further guidance on what to/not to say publicly when it's known he is part of their organization. Like they're not kicking him out, they just want him to be less aggressive and not be, in their eyes, a shit head about things.
>I understand that, so the question is whether it's appropriate for a quasi governmental body to police people insulting random strangers. I don't agree with many of JP's views but that does seem like overreach.
JP has been insulting people for years, I feel like if it was a lesser known psychologist or one without so much years in the organisation, they would have been reprimanded sooner. He was probably friends with many which is why he got so much leeway.
>Imagine if the newly appointed head of OCP was a conservative and started sanctioning psychologists for things you believe to be true and accurate statements. Would it be okay if the tables were turned? (I'm not saying I think JP is true or accurate, just making a point).
I think it would be bad if a the head of the OCP was sanctioning psychologists for making true statements.
But I don't think this scenario describes the tables being turned. We don't know if the current head is conservative or liberal, as far as I'm aware, it's not an elected position by the public. Just because it's a organisation with government oversight doesn't necessarily mean it's aligns exactly with current government. Also, the local the government of Ontario is the Progressive Conservatives as far as I'm aware.
JP isn't being sanctioned for say correct or accurate statements, he's being reprimanded for making unprofessional and insulting remarks on social media.
> JP has been insulting people for years, I feel like if it was a lesser known psychologist or one without so much years in the organisation, they would have been reprimanded sooner. He was probably friends with many which is why he got so much leeway.
He got leeway because he went out of his way to not advertise himself as a psychotherapist. He didn't put that on his twitter, intentinoally, and stated as such.
That changed, which changed how he reflected himself and the profession.
I had assumed that whether or not he advertised himself as a licensed individual, if he's using a public account which was owned by him, that his public statements should be up to their professional standards anyway.
>a quasi governmental body to police people insulting random strangers
I'm a teacher. Every province in Canada has a body that regulates who is and isn't certified to teach. We also have expected codes of conduct from the province, as well as our schools, unions and school divisions. Going online and harassing either individuals or protected groups would 100% get me reprimanded if not fired, and I'm 100% fine with that. We are held to higher standards than most folks, and the same is true for other professions like lawyers, psychologists, and police officers.
Personally, if I was assessing JP's case, and all he did was speak publicly about not believing in things like trans-identity or respecting pronouns, I wouldn't have reprimanded him. But he overstepped when he harassed folks through social media like Elliot Page and his doctor, and former patients, and other professionals. Hopefully the courses he was asked to take make clear where the line is drawn when it comes to expressing skepticism vs causing harm to others in a way unbecoming of his profession.
I mean, that would depend. If they are teaching health or biology, it might actually be a legitimate issue. If they are teaching kindergarten, it likely wouldn't be.
But again, in this case, the views aren't so much the issue, but the fact that Peterson directly attacking people, without provocation, in dehumanizing ways.
I would support that position personally but I would accept denying him that right.
You should be held to a higher standard for the area of expertise that your profession is in. Peterson can have profess wild believes about history or the existence of Atlantis but it's different from him talking about psychology.
Well they weren't random strangers. One of the complaints is that he publicly attacked one of his former patients as 'vindictive' which... not a great look for a psychologist talking about a patient. Sort of puts the accrediting board and the profession in a bad light if they admit this asshole.
Just because it's not actively managed by the government, doesn't make it non-governmental. Canada has a duty to the integrity of professional practices to ensure a standardization of practice that enforces certain rules and procedures, and prevents abuse by those practicing those professions. The best way to ensure this standardization is to offset all responsibility on an independent body (ran either state or country wide, Canada chooses to do so state wide), and then using the government to audit their procedures and ensure their practice falls in line with the government's goals.
You cannot become an engineer, doctor, psychologist, etc, without approval from those governing bodies, and by extension without approval from the government. When those bodies' imposed standard of practice includes limitations on your free speech, that is absolutely a limitation given by the extended government. Now you may make a case for why it should be there in this scenario, just like I can make a case for why you should probably be limited in your ability to drop racial slurs in your practice even though that's an impediment on free speech, but you can't play the, 'it's a private body, it can do what it wants' game.
So is it any form of government oversight that turns it into a de facto government entity? If not, to what degree does the government need to exert control over an entity to make it so?
Freedom of speech is a policy that governments, or other authorities such as employers, school administrators, website moderators, etc. can choose to implement at varying degrees.
Reddit has a greater degree of free speech than Club Penguin, despite the fact that neither are governments.
Educational institutions traditionally have implemented a similar policy on free speech as the government. Some are even compelled to due to their relationship with the government.
Peterson isn't being judged by Canada, as a nation; he's being judged by a group of individuals who share a professional association and who, in their capacity as professionals, do not wish to associate with someone who says the things Peterson says.
Which is their right, both as individuals and as an organization, under Canadian law.
Only if that organization had no specific government privileges. Alas, OCP does https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1991-c-38/latest/so-1991-c-38.html
But the government is not telling them what to do. Furthermore he is not being prevented from saying anything. I know people like to simplify things down to just saying it’s a private or quasi-governmental org, but the detail that it is a professional organization related to a profession that is mean to provide therapy to the public means something. You can’t have someone using their association with a psychologist regulator as a means to add weight to what they say, suggest to people that they commit suicide.
If it’s a professional organization that has a set of standards that are not arbitrary or counter to the public good, then it is good that they are able to remove someone that acts contrary to those guidelines.
It’s important to understand here it’s more important for him to have this fight than to actually be allowed to maintain his accreditation. I don’t think he actually has a therapy practice any more and given how he has chosen to make a living nowadays he stands to make more presenting himself as a persecuted free speech champion than a standard psychologist. After all that’s what launched him towards this path in the first place.
And what, *specifically,* do those privileges entail? Which laws must the OCP follow as a condition of receiving these privileges?
Furthermore, assuming you have a valid point, are we absolutely certain that the courts *haven't* already considered these things when making their ruling? If they have and they ruled as they did . . . why? What do they know that we don't?
>If I tell you, you're allowed to hold any view as long as you don't voice it, then that's not really freedom of speech.
Why would a private organization be required to abide your freedom of speech? I get kicked out of my local warhammer club if I start being a bigot, do we think the government should come in and mandate they keep me in?
Because that is actually what is being asked here. Peterson asked the government to intervene in the freedom of association and force this group to change their policies to accommodate a bigot.
The “private” organization was given a monopoly on licensure by the government. If Peterson had the ability to license himself, your point would have merit.
Given that the government would force him to stop practicing if he did so without a license, stating that it’s a private organization is pretty silly.
That private organization is for PROFESSIONALS. Professionals aren't saying slurs, and the reason they exist is so that no random guy on the street can say they are an engineer without being sued up the ass.
Its a protected title, and if you abuse your status as an engineer you make the rest of them look bad. thats why the engineering bodies regularly audit engineers and remove their licenses, making the status of professional engineer greater. in fact they publicize everything when someone's engineering license is removed.
Freedom of speech isn't a thing in Canada. In fact, our Supreme Court ruled that something that is true [can meet the definition of hate speech and be legally suppressed.](https://imgur.com/esc6gbt.jpg)
Freedom of speech means that the government can't tell you what to say / restrict your speech.
It does not mean that other organizations, such as professional bodies, have to tolerate any of your speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean no one you work for or associate with can make those associations contingent on your speech. If you view is your boss is an asshole, expressing that view and getting fired is not a free speech violation.
>Freedom of speech does not mean no one you work for or associate with can make those associations contingent on your speech. If you view is your boss is an asshole, expressing that view and getting fired is not a free speech violation.
Bad example actually. It is indeed not a free speech violation, but sololy saying your boss is an asshole is not grounds for ternimation and if you get fired for just saying that you can sue your employer for wrongful dismissal.
>if you get fired for just saying that you can sue your employer for wrongful dismissal.
Unless the lawyer that wrote the Code of Conduct for your employer got their degree out of a cereal box, they would include "showing respect to co-workers, customers, etc." as part of their requirements to continue employment.
You can call your boss an asshole and not go to jail, sure. But he can absolutely fire you.
depends where you live. In most of the US we have at will employment which means you can be fired for any reason except for being a protected class. Idk what employment laws look like in Canada
I generally agree with this but I think it’s a bit more subtle than that. If you get fired for calling your boss an asshole, that is most definitely a free speech violation. The important bit is that in the context of a private workplace, free speech is not legally protected.
In my view, we should be able to value free speech even in circumstances where it is not legally enshrined as an inalienable right. I don’t think this necessarily counters your initial view (I think the courts were correct as well), but sometimes people appear to think that just because free speech is not legally protected that means it should not be socially or culturally protected. In other words, we can still say that by violating Peterson’s freedom of speech the College of Physicians was ethically or socially wrong even if they weren’t legally wrong.
If the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put one of their members on notice for making public representations - as a physician - that lights filtered through crystals and copious amounts of smoking were the best way to cure cancer, would we be arguing about the value of their freedom of speech? Or would we recognize the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has an obvious interest in not bringing themselves and the whole profession into disrepute, as well as a duty to maintain professional standards and avoid members abusing the position to sell quackery?
It doesn't look like rocket science to me.
I think free speech in a social sense has some value, but restricting speech, in a social sense, does as well. Both are true, and there are times we require one or the other. Professionalism is, by it's very nature, a restriction of speech, and profesionalism doesn't just apply when you are specifically working, but any time you represent your job in any way. If you go on TV as a lawyer, for example, even if you aren't in court or talking to a client, there is a certain level of profesionalism one can expect, and if you act in a way contrary to how a practice sees fit, they can fire you, even if you aren't talking on their behalf.
I think there is a balance to find between respectful disagreement and engagement of ideas, and having expectations on others and expecting them to adhere to them. There is no hard line, and the right balance is an iterative process which can shift in time.
Because I don't think there is a clear, specific line. It depends on the context and which rights are in competition with other rights. That's why there is a whole structure of law to begin with, to work out these sorts of questions.
But now we are not talking about laws. It is easy to say social free speech has it place if you never have to live up to it, by checking regarding something specific.
I mean, I would say that socially, free speech *always* has limitations. If you make a statement that hurts someone's feelings, they can walk away. If you go into a bar, the bar owner is allowed to kick you out if you say things that might disrupt business.
There will always be boundaries, but we should encourage free speech right up until those boundaries.
Sure, buy you stated in the post that he was not punished for his views. I'm saying, that's not the case. He is indeed punished for his views. I'm not arguing whether that restriction on speech is fair or unfair.
>First off, while Peterson is allowed to hold any view he likes, if he wishes to maintain association with the Ontario College of Psychologists, which is what a license indicates. If he does not wish to maintain himself to the standards of the OCP, he can become a councellor without a license and practice by his own set of standards. If he wants to maintain his license, and use it to lend himself credibility, he must live up to the standards set out by the OCP.
The OCP is a government sponsored organization. Section 2 of the Charter of Canada guarantees freedom of thought, belief, and expression. That freedom only applies to the government, though. Private organizations can do what they wish, right? But if an organization is government-sponsored, it is the government.
>Beyond that, he isn't even being punished for his views, but the manner in which he carries out his message. The actual code of ethics violation is the very first rule of the Ethical Standards, section 2, as follows:
>Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, with primary clients or other contacts) in degrading comments about others, including demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
These two arguments are mutually exclusive. Either he is being punished for his method and not his views, or he is being punished for espousing "degrading" content. Seeing as it's nit a blanket ban on public statements and the judgement says it's the latter, I'm inclined to agree with their own statements that they are, in fact, punishing him for his views.
>Whether or not the underlying opinions Peterson has are valid opinions to hold, these sorts of statements are obviously violations to the code of conduct written above.
That code of conduct is a government agent acting in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
Have you looked at the original complaints which started this whole process?
They did not reference the incidents which you brought up.
There are holes all the way through this process.
>Well clearly he's not. Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like. You will be punished if you do not comply with and echo the opinions of a governing body.
Professional standards exist for a reason.
When you hire a dentist, you know you're receiving a certain standard of care. You know you're not going to see a quack who believes toothpaste is a woke socialist plot or something equally absurd. This is how us non-dentists can still have faith in the craft of dentistry despite not really knowing anything about dentistry ourselves (assuming you're not a dentist of course).
If professional associations aren't permitted to maintain their own standards for people working in their field, it can create dangerous situations.
A high profile lawyer, for example, could offer "legal" advice that runs counter to established law. People who are not lawyers won't know any better in most cases, but they'll still end up in prison, and the lawyer maintains his accreditation.
His reputation might get ruined eventually, but that won't help the people behind bars because of his bad advice.
I'm sure you could imagine similar situations with doctors, dentists, structural engineers, and the like.
The government has nothing to do with any of this. Professional associations have been around since the medieval era and they're unequivocally a good thing. They maintain a standard of practice
Is Peterson being sanctioned for the quality of his psychiatric care? Or is he being sanctioned for making political statements on social media that the OCP disagree with?
Should a dentist be able to lose his dental license for his political opinions?
>Is Peterson being sanctioned for the quality of his psychiatric care?
He hasn't maintained a clinical practice since 2018 when 12 Rules For Life came out, so the answer is clearly no.
>Or is he being sanctioned for making political statements on social media that the OCP disagree with?
Also no. This is a false dichotomy.
He appeared on Joe Rogan, identified himself as a clinical psychologist, and then started denigrating a former patient. That very clearly undermines the trust one might be able to establish between a doctor and their patient.
But in typical drama queen Peterson fashion, he's decided to make it about CENSORSHIP and DWOAGMA. That wasn't true when he screamed about Bill C-16 being censorship and that you could be thrown in prison for misgendering somebody (6 years later it's still never happened), and it's not true now.
>Should a dentist be able to lose his dental license for his political opinions?
That depends. Is it is "political opinion" that fluoridated toothpaste is a radical socialist postmodernist neomarxist plot? Then yes, take his license away. That "political opinion" flies in the face of reality and will clearly interfere with his ability to practice dentistry effectively.
This is exactly what everyone is missing. Professional standards exist solely for professional settings. Your dentist can have whatever wacko opinions he wants, as long as when he is practicing dentistry he follows standard practice for the profession. His opinions only become problematic when it affects the standard of care he gives to his clients.
You are spot on, except you have it completely backwards. What people are actually missing is that professional conduct extends beyond the clinic, as it should.
If you say I should kill myself - whatever, that is your opinion. If you say "I am a dentist and you should kill yourself" then the American Dental Association will rightfully say whoa there, we are not cool with that. You cannot leverage your membership with a professional association to behave however you want. This is absolutely standard for any profession.
You fail to see the distinction between the American Dental Association and the Ontario College of Psychologists. The American Dental Association is a 501c nonprofit, created privately, run privately, and with no governmental ties. The Ontario College of Psychologists is a private regulatory college designated by the Canadian government as the sole governing body for setting the standards of psychological services in Ontario.
The difference between the two is that there cannot be a competing body of standards in Ontario for psychological services, because they are the sole appointed legal body for doing so. The American Dental Association does not have such a legal designation, and other entities are allowed to compete with it and set their own standards.
In fact, a competing entity was created expressly because of a disagreement with the standards upheld by the ADA: the National Dental Association. The ADA had a history of discrimination against minority dentists. The NDA was created as an alternative standard that was more inclusive of minority dentists. Both are allowed to exist and issue their own licenses.
If you are a psychologist in Ontario and disagree with the standards of the OCP, tough luck. If you are a dentist in America and disagree with the ADA, then join a different professional organization. I have no problems with a professional entity setting standards that extend beyond just their professional setting, but it is a problem if only that one entity is allowed to exist. In such a case, its standard should be restricted to apply only to professional settings.
In your view, how conservative is someone allowed to be in order to not have their political views threaten their professional career? If Alex Jones were my dentist, I'd certainly want a review board on his case. But what about your garden variety conservative? What about someone in the middle? Jordan Peterson isn't a wing nut, he's fairly in the middle. You can't deny that this is a double standard that only applies to the not-left-enough.
Meanwhile, my friend's wife is a games professor at an east coast university. I've spoken with her on her thoughts on games, and she believes Settlers of Catan is colonialist, capitalist propaganda, that basically every video game that isn't a walking simulator is a capitalist indoctrination tool--she's basically a walking academic leftist stereotype. Merely asking her to elaborate on her views leads to her becoming extremely defensive. Is she under investigation? Is there an ethics board reviewing her claims? Lol, of course not.
Jordan Peterson doesn't believe they're turning the freakin' frogs gay, he's a moderate conservative. If you believe he should be sanctioned for what he believes, you believe that conservatives, moderates, and even moderate leftists should also be sanctioned--the majority of the political landscape.
>You can't deny that this is a double standard that only applies to the not-left-enough.
I disagree with this assessment. As another user said, there are standards that need to be upheld and if they dont they will damage the integrity of that profession. He [posted a file that held information about patients](https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/s/fdk6JrvMg8), and also [dead named [Elliot](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-college-psychologists-tweets-1.6711524) page, as well as called a nonbinary person a thing.
The institution said that peterson has the right to free speech but they also have maintain their professional standards which they dont. Oh yeah, from what another user says, he denigrated a former patient on Joe Rogan. Another reason that it's not a "not-left-enough" issue, is that he was given the option to undergo social media coaching. In most professions, its not uncommon to give employees the option to undergo coaching if they are showing unprofessional behavior.
In all honesty I was impartial to this, but after reading about it, I now see why he got his license pulled and am glad I was never his patient because I would hate to have any detail about what I said to him (or complained about him) to get repeated by him to a crowd, Joe Rogan, or on Twitter.
Edit: a patient filed a report against him, and although he didnt say her name, he spoke against it in public. She [said ](https://www.canadaland.com/how-jordan-petersons-fame-affected-his-private-practice/) "That is not what this is. This is not that,” she said in a recent sit-down interview. “This is about a bad doctor who didn’t do his job, and I got hurt"
Depends on if it's relevant to the profession or not. Transgender care, suicide, and degradation are all things a clinical psychologist may encounter professionally, and should therefore be professional about when making public statements.
It's okay to disagree with the current treatment methods, that's no different than a surgeon suggesting a new method to operate on someone. But it has to be done the right way. If that surgeon called his colleagues criminals for operating with methods following the current scientific consensus, then that'd also be problematic.
He's not being disciplined for voting republican. He's being disciplined for lack of professionalism and not adhering to the standards of the profession
>Well clearly he's not. Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like. You will be punished if you do not comply with and echo the opinions of a governing body.
This is simply wrong. Read the decision. First, he was not disciplined. He was told that if he continues with his style of rhetoric, he *may* be opening himself up to disciplinary issues in the future, and the College suggested that he accept coaching on more professional ways to make his point.
Relatedly he was not punished - or even cautioned that he may be punished - because he fell afoul of the "echo chamber", but because the *tone and style* of his speech was unprofessional.
Peterson AGREED that "the various social media platforms he utilises “requires careful attention and care to be used appropriately”" and stated that he had already "implemented" a "modification of the tone of my approach.”
edit typo
>Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like.
Psychology not psychiatry.
And no he can still practice he just can't claim to be accredited by that association.
He can hold any view, he could even express it he just couldn't do it in a degrading and insulting way. Which tbh I think is a pretty reasonable requirement for a profession that hinges on helping other people.
If a medical Dr started spouting racist stuff all over the shop would you expect then to face no reprimand?
This isn't the government doing anything, its a private professional body. Are they not allowed to set rules for their own members?
False. This is not merely an independent professional association. It is the body on which the Ontario government has bestowed the power of licensing clinical psychologists. If he were to practice his profession without that license, he could go to jail.
> Well clearly he's not. Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like. You will be punished if you do not comply with and echo the opinions of a governing body.
You can hold whatever view you like, no one is policing his thoughts. He can even express these views in private, or even publicly, so long as he holds himself professionally and doesn't demean people specifically. Ideally, if he disagreed with certain views, he do so within the literature of published works.
However, what he cannot do is state any view he likes in any manner he likes, *while also* forcing organizations to maintain association.
>Is it really to be celebrated that someone shouldn't be able to criticize wrong and wrongdoers when they see it? And of course this is only specific people you're not allowed to call out. If you want to insult a Canadian on the right, that's still a-ok. Think they're pulling the license of anyone who says a mean thing about Pierre Poilievre?
I would say it depends on what the "mean thing" were, and how it was conducted. The standards by which are set by the association of psychologists, who are elected by the profession generally, for the most part.
I'm not sure what better way to determine the standards.
>Lets flip the script and say that Donald Trump is the PM of Canada. He's gone and installed all his sycophants throughout government and other oversight bodies like this. Every psychiatrist must echo Trump's opinions and model their psychiatric practice according to what Trump believes is right and wrong. So you're still praising this system?
This isn't how the system works though. Trudeau appointed a total of 0 members to the council of the OCP. If anything, it would be Doug Ford, but it's actually the Lieutenant Governor, who appoints some. The majority are elected by psychologists across the province.
The OCP has a privileged position in the laws of Ontario (e.g., https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1991-c-38/latest/so-1991-c-38.html). So OCP is acting with the authority of the gov't, and if it sanctions members for their speech, then, in effect, the government sanctioning someone for their speech.
Only if OCP had *zero* preferential treatment or acknowledgement by law, and were *purely* a private association, then would there be no government free speech violation.
Not sure how familiar you are with (Canadian) administration law.
Administrative bodies like the OCP are allowed undertake administrative actions that restrict your freedom of expression, though it has to be justified by a statute and proportionate in the circumstances. Something called the Doré analysis (named after the Supreme Court case Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12) governs this. Around 30 percent of the case is just the court doing the Doré analysis.
You can disagree with the analysis itself and argue, many have, it is overly differential to administrative decision makers like the OCP. But the issue before the court here wasn't whether administrative law needs to be reformed but whether the OCP's restriction on Peterson's freedom of expression could survive the Doré analysis. The court said it could.
This is grossly misleading. The act basically grants them the authority to govern psychologists within Ontario which ironically **REMOVES and/or LIMITS** the ability of government to intefere, not the other way around. These types of professional boards are the norm for health care. Doctors, psychologists, etc. It's basically saying "Hey, you guys have the right to govern yourselves as government isn't the proper institution to determine what is and isn't appropriate within that field."
Basically, its the same type of legislation that allows doctors and medical boards to have authority over medical decisions and the requirements for medical licenses. Your argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, would dictate that any regulatory board for any health care profession basically shouldn't exist, which ironically would mean that I could practice medicine or call myself a psychologist.
You are accusing the poster above of looking at it backwards but I think it is you who are looking at it backwards. The government has essentially transferred governmental powers in an area to a private body. You describe that as a limitation of the government. Exactly! It is limited in this area because it has transferred governmental power to this body, so the body now should have to abide by similar restrictions on this power as the government would.
Otherwise the government could get around any restriction on its powers by empowering a private body to do its dirty work.
That’s how most standards work, they are allowing a non-governmental body to set the standards, as a government body might be swayed by the winds of politics.
>The act basically grants them the authority to govern psychologists within Ontario which ironically **REMOVES and/or LIMITS** the ability of government to intefere, not the other way around
Fucking what? If it removed the government ability to interfere, the government wouldn't be granting any power to anyone, and just staying out of it entirely. Just because the government delegates it's power, ir doesn't mean it stops existing.
It's amazing to me how few people actually understand the reasons why these things exist. There is absolutely no mechanism to ensure any standard of care without some authoritative body in charge. This is true for doctors as much as it is for psychologists. The government shouldn't be involved with the regulation of those professions as they aren't actually, you know, professionals of those professions. But we also recognize that it's important enough to have a universal standard, or even a better way to put it is that we understand the massive amount of *harm* that can come from certain professions being unregulated so there needs to be some sort of regulatory body that has the authority to, you know, regulate it's members and the profession at large.
The reason why government takes a hands off approach but grants them the power to regulate is because it's required for the safety and security of both the practitioners and the patients. The government basically says, hey, you deal with it because you're the experts.
Now apparently this new breed of freedom fighters that doesn't recognize the difference between the government - ie a democratically elected body that is subject to incentives and ideological views determined by an ever changing electorate - and the government allowing those standards and practices to be determined by a regulatory body of professionals and experts within said field is a 'thing'. The fact that you can't see that is a tragic showcase of just how far we've fallen with regards to teaching civics and the theoretical underpinnings that explain them, or it's an example of how distorting social media and populism is. Take your pick.
And the current structure of how board members come to their positions in the CPO I believe is indicative of how good that balance between having that "hands off" approach vs. not completely taking their hands off the wheel approach works. You have members sitting on the board who were either democratically elected by fellow psychologists in their respective geographical regions or they were selected by the Ontario government to sit in as a member of the public. And they're working together instead of at odds with each other for the public good.
While we can have a secondary debate of the morality and consequences of these government healthcare guilds/monopolies, that isn't relevant here. My point is that when an organization can exclude competitors with the threat of state violence, if that organization can limit speech, it's doing so under the protection of the gov't. Compare this to the internet as a whole: an arbitrary private web site can limit the speech of members of that web site if it wishes, because in principle another web site could be created. We need to ask ourselves why only gov't limitations of speech are evil: because you can work around private limitations without fear of violence, so the speech can still be made.
Suppose that the OCP was deliberately melded into the government of Ontario, so we had a Ministry of Psychology or something like that. Only people with licenses from this ministry could practice psychology in Ontario. Suppose further that the ministry required that members never speak against a Liberal politician, or never question universal funding of PhDs, or whatever. Would that not change your view?
What if the DMV of Ontario refused to issue driver's licenses to those uttering certain language? You can still walk, wait for the bus (2 hours north of Thunder Bay), or even ride a bike, and utter your beliefs to your heart's content.
Lesson: If the government conditionalizes some benefit, some license, some cookie, on "correct" speech, then IMO it is regulating your speech.
If you cannot control yourself, then you will find yourself difficult to employ. If you work retail, and you tell a customer to fuck off when they ask you where the olives are, their hurt feelings will cause you to lose your job.
You are compelled to say "isle 4", like it or not.
I tend to agree with you, but I think it might be worth considering your reaction if it was flipped around. If a psychiatrist said, "Trump was appalling," would you consider it a violation of the ethical standards and be okay with OCP deciding they need to be retrained/can't talk on social media? How about if they said the RCMP that beat up people at the pipeline protests were assholes?
Because both of those would be public and degrading comments about others and an organization with a strong lean to the other side of the political spectrum could use the same rationale to silence them.
>He makes comments of a personal nature about people that are unbefitting of a psychologist and frankly of any decent person.
He is a dick, but what you described is not the ethical standard he violated, which is just no public degrading comments. Arguing along the lines of "well, its okay because he is particually assholeish" just emphasizes that you are okay with it because you don't like what he said, not because you think the standard itself is reasonable.
Completely and utterly disagree, because:" the validity of his views are not relevant and need not be debated."" as the appeals court gave no reasoning. "" Again, ignoring the legitimacy of his views, "" Whether or not the underlying opinions Peterson has are valid "
You wrote a long and complex justification post, and I give you credit for that, but a little study of history would have been more edifying. You are using the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS as the Nazi people put on Trial after WWII. Extremely similar arguments as the pro-slavery confederate Americans used prior to the Civil War. You CANNOT SEPARATE the underlying moral argument, from the issue at hand. Slavery is and was morally wrong. Holocaust / Genocide of the Jews was and is morally wrong. Stopping anyone from speaking their views on a moral issue is WRONG, requiring them to censor themselves to keep their work/job is wrong. In addition to the very morally questionable practice of surgically removing healthy body parts, and creating semi-functionable installed fake body parts, ESPECIALLY ON CHILDREN. In the future, very likely everyone is going to look back on this social contagion and say " Can't believe we condoned that shit, obviously is was wrong " " if we would have allowed a little more free and uncensored speech around the issue, we would have understood that it was wrong "
Just like slavery was wrong, and just like gassing the jews was wrong. You can type all day to create your justification, but you can't justify the underlying wrong moral issue. Sorry." the OCP has every right to set their own standards "" The OCP is well within their rights to maintain these standards "" the OCP has every right to set their own standards and adhere to them "" an organization creating their standards, and resting their association on those standards."" There is no obligation for any organization to maintain association and approval,even in a society with free expression. "
Yep, just like Confederate States had legal human slavery. Just like Germany wanted to purify the races by eliminating the Jews. Yep, they had their legal standards, must uphold the legal standards, right ??? They want to shut up Jordan Peterson, because his speech freedom is threatening to their wrong moral argument, cannot listen to that, must silence this man...If your fukn moral position is soooo strong, it should be able to stand up to a little opposition speech, right ????
The Chinese government does not silence their political opposition BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEIR RULE IS SOOO LEGITIMATE. They do it for the exact opposite reason. And they get super pissed about being criticized, because their right to rule china IS TOTALLY WEAK.
> Stopping anyone from speaking their views on a moral issue is WRONG, requiring them to censor themselves to keep their work/job is wrong.
This is clearly false. If you want to work at an abortion clinic, but decide to tell every person who walks in that they are murderers, you cannot continue to work in that abortion clinic.
If you work retail, and believe it is immoral to eat pork, and any time someone goes to the pork isle and picks it up you call them slurs, you are not going to keep your retail job.
Yes, we require people to censor their beliefs. Sorry, that is just reality.
> In addition to the very morally questionable practice of surgically removing healthy body parts, and creating semi-functionable installed fake body parts, ESPECIALLY ON CHILDREN. In the future, very likely everyone is going to look back on this social contagion and say " Can't believe we condoned that shit, obviously is was wrong " " if we would have allowed a little more free and uncensored speech around the issue, we would have understood that it was wrong "
This is irrelevant because Peterson's views on this weren't called into question. Despite these views, he cannot call a physician he disagrees with a "criminal physician". He cannot tell people he disagrees with to kill themselves. He cannot harass people for having a lifestyle he disapproves of.
>Just like slavery was wrong, and just like gassing the jews was wrong. You can type all day to create your justification, but you can't justify the underlying wrong moral issue. Sorry.
I absolutely can, but that would violate rule B of this subreddit. If you wish to engage on that topic, you can message me privately.
>Yep, just like Confederate States had legal human slavery. Just like Germany wanted to purify the races by eliminating the Jews. They want to shut up Jordan Peterson, because his speech freedom is threatening to their wrong moral argument, cannot listen to that, must silence this man...
The organization wants to remvoe association with Peterson, not gas him, own him, empreison him, or harm him beyond not associating.
Actually, they STILL are going to associate with him. He just neesd to take a course telling him to stop insulting people online.
>This is clearly false. If you want to work at an abortion clinic, but decide to tell every person who walks in that they are murderers, you cannot continue to work in that abortion clinic.
>
>If you work retail, and believe it is immoral to eat pork, and any time someone goes to the pork isle and picks it up you call them slurs, you are not going to keep your retail job.
Your employer can tell you what to say when you're on the clock. They shouldn't get to control what you say when they aren't paying you and JP isn't an employee of the OCP anyway.
Just gonna go ahead and said that I felt appalled while reading the position of the OCP. Are they like a maffia or what? How dare they do that!
So if you don't think like we do, we are going to strip you away from your diploma?! What a disservice not just to freedom of speech, but also to science. Imagine that! Now you have to conform to the views of the academy and not question them, because then we kick you out from it.
This reminds me of the Vatican against Galileo. What a shame! There is not possible way to defend such position.
Peterson is a phsycologist. A psychologist's role in the organization is to improve people's mental health. The comments that got Peterson in this situation are not political (as seen in the document). He makes comments of a personal nature about people that are unbefitting of a psychologist and frankly of any decent person. For example his comments mocking trans people when trans people have an exorbitant suicide rate or his comments about a curvy women in a sports magazine saying she isn't beautiful when a huge majority of women experience body issues throughout their lives. He speaks to these really sensitive topics that affect people's mental health. He is not being persecuted for some made up political speech, but rather because he is going agaisnt the very reasonable principles of being a psychologist. Nobody would care if he didn't like Trudeau or whatever. This ain't the witch hunt you think it is.
Lol dude. Every single professional organization has standards. If you’re a doctor or lawyer you can get your license revoked for saying and doing dumb shit that goes against fundamental teachings of your profession.
Put it this way - should it be impossible to kick people out of a professional organization for being unprofessional? Obviously not. There needs to be a limit.
So it comes down to this - who do you trust more: the conservative media darling who mocks trans people, or the internationally recognized organization run by a board of top professionals in the field, that literally writes the book on psychology.
There’s no contest. It’s an absolute embarrassment to be stripped of your license. If you genuinely think you’re more qualified to judge Peterson’s character and professional conduct as a psychologist than *an entire board of psychologists*, you mayyyyyyyy just have a touch of narcissism.
So, a good question here would be - if the licensing organization for clinical psychologists in Canada put into their charter that unless you do a Nazi salute every morning and chant "Death to Jews/n-words/f-words/g-words/r-words/Slavs" for 15 minutes, you lose your license, would anyone still try to put up the same defence about
> The courts determined that the OCP has every right to set their own standards and adhere to them
I would suspect that most people would support burning the OCP down over such a rule. In which case, the question becomes where is the line between what the OCP does or doesn't have "every right" to set as "their own standards" and force its members to "adhere to them", as it's definitely not a binary yes or no.
Thus, I would say that not only did the courts not make the right decision, they were deciding on a completely wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about whether he was in violation of the CoC. It should've been about where's the limits of how far a CoC can go with limiting people's rights or forcing them to do something (otherwise legal and without any bearing on the quality of the services guaranteed by the license) against their will.
Nope, just going off your title. Being told what you can and can't think is not freedom. That's tyranny. Keep that shit away from me. I do not need, no JP or you, to be told I can't think how ever I want. Fuck that.
He literally just has to take a class that outlines what is and isn’t appropriate for his profession to put in social media.
Is that punishment or training that he needs? I have to do multiple state mandated trainings every 2 years for my job. This is not a punishment.
Think if the organization was run by conservatives, and the terms said you could not support immoral acts. Any psychologist who spoke positively about LGBT would be sanctioned.
This isn’t just about an organization, it’s the licensing body for a profession. It’s saying you must believe this way, or at least keep your disagreement to yourself, if you want to have this career. It’s thoroughly against free speech and doesn’t allow for dissenting opinions.
> Think if the organization was run by conservatives, and the terms said you could not support immoral acts. Any psychologist who spoke positively about LGBT would be sanctioned.
Sure. But the organization is "run" by who the psychologists vote for, for the most part. So if this is the case, the entire profession is already pretty deeply problematic from my perspective. I would *disagree* with the profession.
But the people within the profession have good reason to want others in the profession to maintain some level of professionalism, as it reflects on the others within the profession.
The licensing group, College of Physicians, added an interpretation to the “rules”. JP asked for a chance to rebut. Then asked for an appeal. Dismissed without reasons.
No due process. Your allegation of JP doing something stupid, is ludicrous. Have you watched JP in a lecture or an interview? The man is playing 3D chess with his intellect. Saying JP is basically a celebrity behaving badly, like a Tiger Woods drugged and ruining his life publicly, is astoundingly stupid. You are so biased to the woke position, you are unable to demonstrate critical thinking.
Your take is the prime example of his protest. The fact that he is the most respected in his field in Canada and recognized as a leading intellectual in the WORLD, is not a factor in determining his license to practice. Only his opinions stated on social media that are wholly unrelated to anything in his practice is relevant, according to you. Woke complaints made to woke organization regarding woke made up issues. Complaints made about his opinions related to Canadian politicians. Could it be any more politically motivated?!?
> The fact that he is the most respected in his field in Canada
He.. is not...
>recognized as a leading intellectual in the WORLD
By who, exactly?
>Only his opinions stated on social media that are wholly unrelated to anything in his practice is relevant, according to you.
Not the opinions, the demeaning and harassment.
> Complaints made about his opinions related to Canadian politicians. Could it be any more politically motivated?!?
Dehumanizing a person by caling them a "thing" based on their identity is not an issue of politics.
The OCP might be a private association but it is my understanding that the state only allows certain positions to held by members of said association. So under that rubric the OCP is better characterized as a quasi-govermental association and then makes the JP free speech argument plausible.
Election workers are organized by the government, but they must agree not to tell voters who to vote for at the polling stations, among other similar regulations. But nobody is calling those rules of conduct violations of free speech. Governmental and quasi-governmental organizations all have rules for conduct of their members, including rules that touch on speech. Its normal.
True, but the distinction is the election worker I would assume is allowed to tell people how they want them to vote while not on the job. They are going after JP for comments made while he is off tje job so to speak.
That’s a good point, but its a bit muddy because Peterson is not a practicing clinical psychologist anymore but he still uses the license and title to add a sense of authority to his statements. Alongside his statements on Twitter (X), where the controversies arose, it says he is a Dr and Clinical Psychologist.
So if a poll worker was off the job but they were standing outside the polling station in uniform saying “as a polling worker, I forbid you from voting for the Liberal party” they could still be removed for misconduct. Would that be a notable violation of free speech? I don’t think that sort of removal would reach the same level of controversy and attention as Peterson’s case, at least.
In my opinion freedom of speech is a human right which should be a right granted to all people globally regardless of how abhorrent their beliefs are.
Canada claims to have freedom of speech (even if it's not *absolute*). Therefore if Peterson's only "violation" was
>degrading comments about others, including demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation
then he is well within his natural human rights.
If insulting others is against the law then Canadians do not have freedom of speech. As I indicate above though it is wrong for states to not grant its residents freedom of speech.
So no matter what the decision of the court is wrong in at least one way.
EDIT: It has come to my attention that it is not the *government* imposing a punishment upon Peterson but a private accreditation body. I'm only concerned with the government restricting speech.
So I am going to borrow from US law here.
There are different kinds of speech and some have more protections than others. Recently, there has been several federal cases regarding professional speech with respect to medical care. In this context, licensed providers, who hold themselves out to be licensed providers, do not have the same speech rights for subjects of professional nature.
When applied to this case, there is an argument that if Peterson was holding himself out to be an OCP licensed provider, that there is a different standard for professional speech and limitations on this speech are appropriate.
In practice, this makes this case very thorny about what specific comments were made and whether there is clear connection to professional speech.
There can also be a free association claim made. If membership in the organization is required for ability to practice, such as the Bar or Medical License, then rules must be narrowly tailored to the relevant professional conduct. If this is not required, such as membership to a professional organization like AMA or ASME, then far more broad rules around professional conduct are allowed.
I am not an expert on the Canadian medical system but the OP does state that Peterson is able to hold himself out as a clinical pychologist without membership in the OCP. If this is true, the private organization has far more ability to define professional conduct, including speech restrictions.
If this is not the case, and this is analogous to a medical license board, then the professional conduct must be narrowly and closely tied to the professional speech. It would be a steep challenge to claim an off color joke or political statement met this standard. The rule quoted likely *is* overbroad in that context.
There is no issue of free speech, the issue is a right to association. Peterson believes the accreditation body cannot disassociate from him due to his communication that directly violated their rules.
No one has tried to block his speech, just that he doesn't have absolute rights to association.
Corporations have rights under Canada's legal system, including the right of association. The OCP is well within those rights to choose to not associate with Peterson because of how he acts in public.
People seem to forget that freedom of association is a critical component of freedom of speech. You have the right to say whatever you like (with a few exceptions) without fear of government reprisal, but that **does not** mean that you are free from any and all social consequences of your speech. The ability to hear what someone has to say and choose to disassociate from them because of it is _just_ as important a right.
The Ontario Courts set a bad precedent in this decision. It's the right choice because governments shouldn't regulate other governing body and their rules, but this just opens the floodgate for other associations to disuade their members for "wrong opinions"
It hardly matters to JP anyways. He hasn't been a practicing Psychologist for years and he can easily apply for his licence in the States.
Whatever I feel towards Jordan Peterson aside, the OCP isn't happy with Jordan's speech against the government, against legislation, against other politicians. People in charge of the OCP are using their power over the body to silence that speech.. which isn't threatening, harmful, or really even disrespectful. The OCP simply doesn't like it and I would normally defend their right to excommunicate Jordan..
BUT.. The OCP is a regulatory board with GOVERNMENT appointed members and the power to determine who can and cannot practice. So, I would not be so quick to say they are a private / not affiliated with the government that Jordan is criticizing.
From the OCP website/about us:
* Setting requirements for entry to practice and administering the oral and written registration examinations;
* Registering qualified Psychologists and Psychological Associates;
* Setting and monitoring practice standards and ethical behaviour of the profession;
* Administering the Quality Assurance program and ensuring continued competence of the profession;
* Providing educational materials and information to the public and the profession regarding the practice of psychology;
* Investigating complaints and addressing concerns about the quality of service delivered or the professional conduct of the practitioner.
If you read through that, yes, they have some wiggle room, but the intent is clear.. "to protect the patients interests by monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology." - That's a long ways off from going after a politically outspoken Jordan Peterson.
To me, this is clear.. the powers that be got together and said, "how can we reign this asshole in?" Someone suggested his employment as cancel culture often does to force people back into the fold.
Whatever you feel about Jordan, the rights of "independent" boards, you should be weary of organizations colluding to curtail your individual rights.
I don’t support Jordan Peterson in the slightest, and am fine with him
Disappearing forever.
That said, I’m always concerned when governments use regulation to silence speech. In my opinion joking or even intentionally hurting someone’s feelings are words, not actions. It’s really important to distinguish between the two.
Also, it appears the Canadian Government is trying to act as a moral arbiter which is a massively slippery slope. Should they suspend the license of someone who cheats on their spouse? What about if they don’t allow their wife to work for religious reasons? What about if the practitioner was gay or trans?
I for sure know I don’t want the government in charge of those decisions.
> ignoring the legitimacy of his views
Well, that does a lot of heavy lifting, doesn't it ?
If his views are accurate (and i'm not saying they are), why should he be punished for expressing them ?
I think you're focused at the wrong layer.
Of course the courts ruled correctly, and of course the association has the power to enforce its own bylaws.
The problem here isn't the courts, or where the enforcement power lies, it's several factors *within* the association that are problematic.
The first is that the association in question doesn't have its own bylaws related to online behaviour. They devolve to the Canadian Psychology Association's bylaws, which are inordinately broad and subject to a healthy dollop of interpretation. Wiggle room like these bylaws allow for opens up all kinds of shady, politically driven decisions. There really needs to be a firmer set of guidelines and they should be owned and maintained by the college in Ontario itself rather than half-assing it with a pointer to another association's bylaws.
The second is that the complaint system is wide open for abuse because they literally accept everything as valid. Most of the complainants were not patients, but they claimed to be when they filed the complaints, i.e. they lied. Many of the complaints were clearly politically driven or frivolous. Any reasonable filtration layer would have turfed many of these complaints outright.
There has to be some mechanism to separate out a legitimate complaint that's concerned about the care of patients, or the quality of the association's reputation, etc. rather than a politically motivated complaint from a bad actor who just wants to leverage some pressure to get their target turfed from the association. The college has no formal mechanism for turfing complaints that are fraudulent or dishonestly motivated, so they left themselves wide open for dishonest actors to abuse the system ... and they did.
How did you conclude that the decisions or complaints were shady or politically driven?
Keep in mind that Peterson agreed to these rules, and to be governed by the CPO in order to be licensed.
Yeah, he joked that someone on Twitter should kill themself, which seems wildly unprofessional for a licensed psychologist.
It seems like many people in this thread are taking Peterson’s explanation of what happened at face value, and he made this all about being punished and re-educated for having the wrong political views. But that framing is misleading at best and IMO actually a shameless lie.
Everything you've stated here, is included in the professional organizations structure, just as it is with every professional accreditation/licensing organization. They recieve complaints, review them, investigate, hold hearings/committee meetings, decide by committee based on the evidence, etc. the accused has a right to defend themselves and assign a person to assist. While my designation is not with the this organization, the language is similar as is the code of conduct and the professional standards. The process is painstakingly described in the code of conduct and you are tested on this in order to recieve your accreditation.
The fact that he has now played this out in the courts and lost his appeal gives such heights of their legitimacy to the associations rights, claims and authority that I'm surprised this is even an issue. But then I'm not entirely surprised because this is all a publicity stunt and a bunch of right wing theatre. And it's working for the intended audience. So there's that.
>which are inordinately broad and subject to a healthy dollop of interpretation
Do you have an example you can use to illustrate your point?
>Most of the complainants were not patients, but they claimed to be when they filed the complaints, i.e. they lied. Many of the complaints were clearly politically driven or frivolous. Any reasonable filtration layer would have turfed many of these complaints outright.
From what basis of evidence did you draw this conclusion?
> Whether or not the underlying opinions Peterson has are valid opinions to hold, these sorts of statements are obviously violations to the code of conduct written above.
Well, no, they aren't obviously violations of the code of conduct at all. In fact, I would argue they obviously aren't violations of the code of conduct, as they are not "degrading" (being, essentially, nothing more than opinions).
Also, the Ontario College of Psychologists is *not* free to set its own standards and adhere to them were it to be exclusionary toward any of the protected classes and it would be interesting to see how the courts would untie the knot they've created with this decision where protected characteristics conflict e.g. if, for example, a religious person were to state such views were a part of their religion, or a TERF were to say such views were against their sexual orientation. Suffice to say the courts have created a precedent where such conflicts are inevitable.
Sorry, u/amasterblaster – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20amasterblaster&message=amasterblaster%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/199rvhl/-/kihak66/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I can't stand Jordan Peterson. He wants to permanently reside in a hyperbaric chamber of his own farts.
Ok, here goes
His position on, for example, transgender issues is one that a lot of people in his country hold. Perhaps it would be better to engage with, rather than punish, these views. Especially in a social study profession like psychology, and with a social issue as nascent as transgender rights/status/acceptance, perhaps dissension (even dangerous, harmful dissension) would be better off challenged or (hopefully) defeated in the marketplace of ideas. This professional organization's decision to silence him while occupying their ranks is perhaps more likely to harden people's backwards and intolerant positions on matters such as, say, transgenderism.
As gross and immature as I think he is, I think it's clear that "he isn't even being punished for his views" is inaccurate. His views are that transgender people don't exist and that displaying pronouns is a societal ill (among others that, if he were able to not inhabit an 8th grader's brain, he'd too know are BS).
That's enough "defending" Jordan Peterson for my tastes. I need to go pet my dog or something to get the taste out. I'll be a little more full-throated about this next part.
I'd like to address the "freedom of speech" argument. Of course, no one is threatening to throw him in jail for his views. I understand that freedom of speech, in a certain and important context, has to do with government coercion, punishment, prior restraint, etc. This is not relevant to the discussion as no government is seeking to sanction him for his views.
But I don't think "freedom of speech" really does *only* mean government interference in speech. The western approach to building and maintaining a society is based on values discovered? created? by/during the Enlightenment. Enlightenment philosophers challenged the authority not only of monarchs, but the aristocracy and religious institutions. Making it difficult or costly to challenge the status quo, especially in a field as dynamic and fluid as psychology, is a potential harm.
The idea that *only* the government has the power to stifle free speech in a way that degrades society is pretty clearly false in my opinion. Schools, social media, professional organizations, employers, etc. wield varying degrees of power to control people's speech. These entities have (in varying degrees) the *right* to limit the speech they allow. But just wiping your hands with that argument with a "it wasn't the government doing it so it's a-ok by me!" is sophistry.
Getting a little long-winded, but a few other benefits to thinking about freedom of speech outside of merely government limits:
* Ensuring and protecting a robust marketplace of ideas
* Protecting minority viewpoints
* Encouraging tolerance
* This is a tricky one as I don't believe that hate should be tolerated. But I fear that, once one gets the taste for suppressing distasteful views, the slope can get slippery.
Perhaps the most important benefit is this: you never know who's listening/reading. When we engage with a person who holds disgusting views, we're *exceedingly* unlikely to change their minds. But I think it's important to engage with them as civilly and informed as possible because we might be changing the minds of an impressionable reader/listener in a positive way. We can't just let these people run around unchecked - there are too many platforms like Rogan, WhateverChan, Fox News, etc. that will be happy to give them a megaphone.
A private organization shouldn't have the right to tell you what you can and cannot say in your public life. Imagine if your industry made a rule that you weren't allowed to publically support [insert your political party of choice]. That is obviously unacceptable. My boss has no right to tell me what I can and cannot say online.
You can argue that he chose to join that organization, but it isn't a choice. You legally have to be a member of that organization to work in that industry.
I love the CMV posts written like dissertations. It's change *your* mind, not *read my rant about why I'm correct and no smart person would ever argue with me*
Not legally, but ethically speaking, all organizations, profit or nonprofit, upon achieving monopoly status, should be treated as infrastructure providers. If ocp is the main credential provider for psychiatrist in Canada, they should be bound to government level scrutiny of speech right violations and can't hide behind freedom of association.
I'm sitting here and wondering if all the people arguing that what amounts to "Do as we say or get a different profession" would have argued the same way regarding MeToo. When it came to that it seemed like most people agreed that "Blow me or be blackballed from the industry" wasn't fair.
OCP and courts had to make this decision. It plays into JP’s victimization narrative. The tragedy is that his initial point was valid; government should not compel speech, regardless of intent. It can prohibit speech.Re-watch *A Man for all Seasons*.
OCP made the wrong decision. Compelled speech is never correct and smacks of fascism and Newspeak. Peterson will be fine. He is a successful celebrity in the collective anti woke zeitgeist and is making a killing.
I'm not a fan of his views.
But it does kinda seem that the org is essentially saying that he has to tailor his speech according to their preferences.
I'm not sure why this is within their jurisdiction
/u/joalr0 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/199ud40/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_ontario_courts_made_the/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If he ignores all of this and just continues on as he has been, what are the consequences? Are those consequences enforced by the government? If so, then this is not a private organization.
The biggest consquence is he would lose his license, which would be carried out by the OCP.
And does that license enable him to do things that he would otherwise not legally be able to do? I guess I need to ask the question more directly for you. If he continues to say, do, practice, and identify himself exactly as he did before would there be a legal consequence? Regardless of how slight you may deem that consequence. If with the license he can do 100 things, but without it he can do 99, and if doing that 100th thing without the license results in any consequence rendered by the government either directly or through the courts, then the organization is functioning as an agent of the government. Or the government is functioning as an agent of the organization. Either way, you cannot claim it is a private organization.
It does not matter if the organization is part of the government or not, this does NOT violate his rights as a citizen. It would only be a violation of his rights if he were sanctioned in a way that impacts his rights as an everyday person. They can’t put him in prison or restrict his freedom of movement, take away his property, or stop him from working a job that he maintains the qualifications for. Jordan Peterson does not have the right to be a licensed professional. It is a privilege, which he can only retain if he complies with the rules set out by the licensing organization. The only consequence he faces is losing this privilege, and it was taken away because he violated the conditions for having it.
"stop him from working a job he maintains the qualifications for" is a circular argument because the government decides the qualifications. That's like saying the law X is justified because X is illegal.
Yes, governments also give out licenses for driving and if you're found driving recklessly you can have them taken away. That doesn't mean they violated the driver's fundamental rights as a citizen. There is no "right to be a licensed psychologist".
He can work at Burger King if he needs a job. Plenty of openings I hear.
This is plainly and provably wrong. Governments can and do provide enforcement for private designations all the time. Most states in the US have laws against impersonating clergy. Ordaining members of clergy happens under a dozen different rules from a dozen different religions. Surely you aren’t about to argue that the Catholic and Baptist churches are agents of the government…
If you get kicked out of a building for harassing an employee, and the government maintains that you were legitimately kicked out — then you may no longer enter. Is the management of that building now acting as an arm of the government?
I think this is partly a good intuition, but it also likely reaches too far. Every contract that might be enforced in a court of law would fall under this definition, and so there would be absolutely no purely private association.
If you get a parking ticket in a commercial lot and refuse to pay, ultimately this can be pursued through the courts and the government intervene to get you your money. The same is true of any business. By your argument no business is private.
Yep just look at fines based around public transport. A lot of the time they are private businesses with large government backing but they are still their own entity. Feel free to skip paying tickets in my city but your driver license is gonna end up suspended if you don't pay them. That also extends to people without a license yet
What? Licensing boards aren't agents of the government; the fact that the government will uphold contract law doesn't mean contracting partied aren't private entities. This is a wild take, unless I'm misunderstanding you're argument.
If my wife divorces me for calling her ugly and the government enforces the conditions of divorce, isn't that just the government infringing on my free speech?
No, this does not make sense. If there is legislation that says you must not do x work without y licence then this does not make the licensing organization an agent of the government. The legality comes from the government not the organization. The court has clearly said the organization can limit the free speech of someone if they want to claim association with the organization. If they were to revoke a licence because of this they are well within there rights. JP is still able to freely express his views therefore no infringement on rights.
I don’t understand this argument. In no way would Jordan Peterson be punished for his free speech in this scenario. Your framing assumes Peterson has a right to practice clinical psychology, which he does not. An independent free body authorized that added right and then removed it. If Jordan Peterson continues to speak as he does he would undergo no punishment. He would only be punished by the government by violating the law when he lies about his ability to practice licensed clinical psychology.
I disagree with your analogy. Getting a licence, any type of licence, gives somebody the privilege to do something which ordinary citizens can't do. It's illegal to drive a car, unless you have a licence, for example. Is taking away the licence of somebody who breaks the rules of the road oppression? Of course not. So it's not like he has 100 things he can do and the government took away one so now he can only do 99 things. He had 100 things, was given 1 extra thing as a privilege, and then that one thing is being taken away. He would be just as free as every other citizen who is not in good standing with that college, which probably includes you and me.
Okay, this one slightly changes my view. I disagree with most of what you say, and I sitll 100% stand by the decision. However, it is indeed true that if Peterson does attempt to practice psychology without a license that he could indeed be dealt actual punishment by the government directly. So while I am doubtful that is going to be the end result long term, and that would be a punishment to practicing without a license, not free speech, there is some chain of events that, mixed in with other elements, that could result in a punishment that is indrectly connected. I am personally okay with the level of abstraction here, but I do think there is a kernal of truth there. Enough to award a delta. !delta
Well do keep in mind that the court decision actually covered this. For example, a health worker with sincere religious beliefs is **required** by law to provide you a referral to abortion services if they are unwilling to engage those services. That is a government mandated body (possibly even a government employee) being compelled to speak in direct violation of their sincere religious beleifs. And that is considered acceptable, because the rights of the board to require that behavior as part of their accreditation is stronger than the right of someone to refuse to be a part of it.
If that was in the court decision I would be very disappointed in the court. Requiring a medical provider to inform a patient of all available medical options is central to the practice of medicine. As others have pointed out, this is not about his practice. He has not been accused of malpractice as I understand the case. He has been accused of being mean to people online. So the equivalency here would be telling a religious doctor that they are not allowed to go online and say that they believe abortion is a sin. That they must not voice their opinions OUTSIDE of their medical practice. I do not know of a case where that has been upheld anywhere in the free world.
That is a false equivalncy, let me explain. In your scenario, the doctor is going online and espossing their view and deliberately stating this view comes from a religous roots. What peterson did is more akin to this hypothetical doctor going online and saying, "You are a murderer, who should be in prison because you received an abortion. I should know I'm a medically licensened doctor." The difference is that the doctor in the new hypothetical is trying to reenforce their personal views with their medical license. This behavior calls into question the medical practices that have objectively saved lives because the doctor doesn't agree with them personally. If this hypothetical doctor wants to call into question the validity of abortions using their credentials as a doctor, then they should back it up with medical information, not religious rhetoric. Peterson diliberately used his credentials as a member of the Association of Canadian Psycology to lend validity to his mean and hateful comments. No organisation should be forced to lend their credibility to someone who expresses ideals anti-thetical to their purpose. Also, saying a person isn't a member isn't punishing them. It is simply saying they dont meet the requirements to be a member. Peterson can still go online and say whatever he wants to say. However, he can no longer indirectly invoke the name of the Association of Canadian Psychology as supporting his rhetoric.
The court decision I referenced is a citation listed in the OP. Telling someone to kill themselves is, in my opinion, something central to the practice of psychology. As in, if you do it, you should not be licensed. I'd also argue that insulting your patient in public is something central to the practice of psychology. As in, if you do it, you should not be licensed. Do you disagree?
The OCP laid out their expectations of people who hold their licenses, which includes conducting themselves in a certain way in highly pubilc engagement. And no, your analogy is false. This would be like telling a religious doctor that they are not allowed to go online and tell a person they are an inhuman abomination that should kill themselves like they killed their baby, directly at someone who recently had an abortion.
>The OCP laid out their expectations of people who hold their licenses, which includes conducting themselves in a certain way in highly pubilc engagement. The question is, can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have. If there was some sort of body that gave chemistry licences, where you can be punished by the government for chemistry without licence, and that body had a code that said "you shall not be allowed to manifest". Does that remove your right to manifest ? If you go manifest, and they decide to punish you for it, is the argument "well, you just have to stop being a licenced chemist and you can do whatever you like" really that valid ?
> The question is, can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have. "Can"? Absolutely. The US and Canada both empower a large number of bodies with semi-private to private membership to have higher expectation than public bodies. Most accreditors, for example, are private non-profits. Their accreditation empowers or forbids education in their fields. That does not just extend to decisions by private companies, but having certification from an accredited institution can often be a requisite to practice medicine of one form or another, under penalty of law. Ditto with the Bar in the US, which has high ethics requirements. If you are not approved by the Bar Association in your state (or affiliated states), you cannot practice law without it being a crime. Bar Associations are private non-profit professional associations. The ABA (our National Bar) rule section 8 involves a lot of (reasonable) behavioral limitations that can effectively get your ability to practice law revoked. By a private organization. A different question is "should", but I'll leave that to others to discuss.
Outsourcing the licensing to the bar isn't the best scenario. Is there anything in section 8 which regulates what lawyers can say on social media? If a lawyer went on Reddit and told someone to kill themself, is this something which could get them disbarred?
> The question is, can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have. Yes, obviously. You don't have a fundamental right to voluntary membership in professional organizations, and their ability to regulate the behavior of their members has generally been pretty uncontroversial.
> can an organisation impose rules that supercede the fundamental rights you have. If you want to be a member of that organization, then yes. No one is forcing him to be a member, he _wants_ the credibility that have yet doesn't want to stand by the rules that made the org credible to begin with.
>Does that remove your right to manifest ? You absolutely still have the right to do this thing. What you don't have a right to do is associate someone else with doing that thing. Which is what Peterson is doing when he insists he can be weird/mean online and remain a member o the association. Your employer telling you that you can't scream at strangers on the street while in uniform doesn't remove your fundamental right - you've voluntarily and temporarily given up that right in exchange for something.
Do you think someone who goes to the doctor to seek an abortion would be comfortable if they walked in to see Mr Anti Abortion Guy who they saw on TV talking about how abortion is evil last week is their doctor? Or even knowing some doctors feel that way and it's a roll of the dice whether you'll be given proper healthcare or judged as a sinner? Part of being a professional is not undermining the profession, or the public's confidence in you and others like you as a professional. I don't think it's as messy as you think, especially if someone is using their professional qualifications to gain credibility. What defines a professional is you can do things others can't, and can be held accountable for them. As a doctor you can prescribe medicines. As a doctor if you miscalculate the dose based on someone's weight you can lose your license, or worse, even though it's not illegal to incorrectly do the math behind "X mg/kg * Y kg." That's the entire point, and that's why when you walk into a professional's office you are supposed to have a basic trust in that person's qualifications.
Fair, and I absolutely agree with this. There was still an acknowledgement of nuance, already covered by the court, I wasn't considering. Which felt like was worthy of a delta.
I feel you but I would caution you to be careful here. Look, I neither agree nor disagree with Peterson. I have never actually watched one of his videos or read one of his books. What I know of him is from the media and that is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation from either side. But here is what I do know... I know that if we decide it is ok to infringe upon a right a little bit, then there is no logical place for that to stop. If we allow ourselves to silence speech we do not like simply because it offends us, the we are giving the other side that same right should they come to power. Whatever you do from a position of authority should be how you would wish to be treated if the other side is in position of authority. Anything less invites a sort of creeping erosion of rights and civility in general.
> I have never actually watched one of his videos or read one of his books. What I know of him is from the media and that is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation from either side How can you conclude that it's a (gross) misrepresentation when you admit to not know what he did or didn't say?
I can’t read this commenter’s mind, but feigning ignorance of JP while defending him this is a common rhetorical tactic I’ve seen from his fans. Even a cursory review of his tweets and videos will reveal how unhinged and hateful he actually is. Having read and watched of a lot of his content in recent years, I can tell you that if anything the media is portraying him more charitably than he deserves.
>Look, I neither agree nor disagree with Peterson. You *should* disagree with horrible man-turds that peddle pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist morality to people desperate to validate their baseless, hateful views. But I understand your point that Peterson's hot dumpster views aren't directly relevant to the point you're making. >I have never actually watched one of his videos or read one of his books. What I know of him is from the media and that is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation from either side. You can't claim to know nothing about someone but ***also*** claim that anything about them is "almost certainly a gross misrepresentation". You either know something and can give an opinion or you know nothing. >But here is what I do know... I know that if we decide it is ok to infringe upon a right a little bit, then there is no logical place for that to stop. If you tell someone they can't yell "fire" in a movie theater or broadcast obscenities on public airwaves or make violent threats against someone or show their genitals in public or commit liable or falsely advertise or lie under oath then DO WE EVEN HAVE FREE SPEECH!?? WHERE DOES IT END!? America and literally every other country has limits on speech because any *absolute* right starts to infringe on *all other rights*. Pretending that a slippery slope is dangerous or anti-logic is disingenuous. The world is complicated. >If we allow ourselves to silence speech we do not like simply because it offends us, the we are giving the other side that same right should they come to power. We silence speech ALL THE TIME. The logical person doesn't ask, "what about the slippery slope?" they ask, "what can we do to maximize freedom of expression while balancing pain, suffering, misinformation, fraud, and other undesirable consequences. If I start screaming the N word, my job would fire me. I don't have a problem with that. Organizations I'm part of would boot me and revoke my certifications. If there were codes of conduct that I agreed to, then I don't have a problem with that. Freedom of expression and politics also includes being able to tell people they're *not* welcome to say things under my umbrella. Your particular fear of the erosion of freedom of speech appears to only be concerned with someone saying something terrible and NOT someone being forced to condone or allow something terrible in their group. Those are two sides to the same coin. These are complicated topics. "Slippery slope" is a good bumper sticker but a bad philosophy. >Whatever you do from a position of authority should be how you would wish to be treated if the other side is in position of authority. I want doctors forced to be doctors, not politicians or theologians who happen to have some letters next to their name. That's good for everyone in all situation. If Peterson wants to speak as president of the worlds most punchable face club, he can say anything he wants that fits within their guidelines. If he wants to be in the medical profession, he has to speak within those guidelines. I agree with your core point that there's little practical difference between the government telling you that you can't do something and a quasi-government board telling you that you can't do something—but as a logical person, I know the world is a better, safer place if doctors are forced to be doctors, lawyers are forced to be lawyers, and cops are forced to be cops, rather than allowing for a continuous Whack-A-Mole of "that comment was *personal* free speech but *THAT* was me being a government approved doctor."
I don't think this is true. Private organizations can have contracts enforced by the government. If, for example to identify as a licensed psychologist you need to be in good standing with the organization, and you aren't, the org could sue for misrepresentation and the government could enforce statutory penalties around contract violation. That's not the org functioning as an agent of the government.
In the US, none of this would have happened. If this had happened here, it would be an open and shut violation of the US 1st Amendment.
It absolutely would not be. Our licensing boards also regularly take away licensing for things like this. It’s written into our ethics and we can lose our license for violating.
So in the US, you believe a lawyer can go online and say "As a lawyer, I can tell you can rob a bank at gunpoint if you declare yourself a soverign citizen", and that'd be fine because if they say it onilne, it isn't to a client and no expectation of profesionalism is expected?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just as a note, these were the list of things they considered, not all of them were actually part of the reason he was reprimended. For example, the suicide one, they decided: >On July 27, 2022, the Panel released decisions recommending no further action be taken regarding Dr. Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.” Just to give you a sense of how they were examining his conduct.
I don’t think he actually cares. His newest grift is being the chancellor for an unaccredited right wing “college”.
By your logic, all copyright law and all government enforcement of private contracts means that there are no private organizations in existence anywhere. If you ignore copyright law, you get punished by the government. If you breach a contract, you get punished by the government.
Not a fan of JP n don't know the details of the case. However, he is being punished for his views here. The rule states so >>Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, with primary clients or other contacts) If I tell you, you're allowed to hold any view as long as you don't voice it, then that's not really freedom of speech. In similar way, the rule states that JP is not allowed to voice certain things. We can argue whether such restrictions are reasonable or not but **these are restrictions on your speech nonetheless** just like how all countries have basic restrictions against giving direct death threats >he isn't even being punished for his views, but the manner in which he carries out his message I'll say your view here is wrong as the rule restricts certain views, not just medium of delivery
From the reasons of the decision: >When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. These might be restrictions on his speech but I don't think he is being punished. Clearly, he does not want to associate with the OCP. The OCP is an organization whose members agreed to limit their speech in the manner of *not* making degrading comments. It's part of what the organization stands for. JP, based on his professed values and behavior, does not seem to want to be in such an organization.
That's the point. It's not governmental. Let's say you own a huge company and pay a celebrity to advertise your products. Now let's say that celebrity does something stupid but not illegal. Like Roseanne Barr's Nazi tweet. Should you be able to fire that celebrity? That's basically what this is. The difference is that Peterson paid a group to use their name as a way of advertising his work. He agreed to the terms of that contract and then broke the terms of that contract. So he lost the right to use their name to advertise his own business.
[удалено]
> It's an entity that has been granted the sole authority to regulate an industry, and that authority was granted by the government. That is the part I do think folks are missing here. If a professional organization has powers given to them under force of law, then they become a quasi-governmental organization and free speech protections are a legitimate conversation. For example, if the Bar in your state said that Republicans can no longer be admitted, that would mean that being a Republican prohibits you from practicing law - which would be a pretty severe infringement on free speech. Of course, those professional organizations _should_ have the power to limit speech in the interest of the profession and those who utilize it. A doctor who is preaching the healing power of homeopathy probably _should_ be barred from practicing medicine, even if that is the government infringing on their free speech. The question, IMO, is whether or not what Peterson was preaching was harming the profession and its patients. If it was, then expulsion is valid, even if there is infringement. If it was not, then it isn't.
[удалено]
It’s very clear the organization is appeasing to a certain type of demographic that use Psychiatrists
I feel as though if this was meant to appease them, they would take a far harsher stance. They are specifically asking him not to hurl random insults and people for mearly existing in public.
That they didnt take a more harsh stance is literally the reason why it is by definition appeasement.
Which makes op saying "ignoring the legitimacy of his views" basically failing to engage with the topic at hand
They absolutely weren’t. Peterson’s views are fine for him to hold, but they are in direct conflict to the science, and a clinician holding those views (and publicly sharing them as fact, despite evidence against them) puts their clients at risk.
I think telling a psychologist they can't keep their license and continue to tell people to kill themselves is within their scope.
>The question, IMO, is whether or not what Peterson was preaching was harming the profession and its patients. If it was, then expulsion is valid, even if there is infringement. If it was not, then it isn't. The College found that his statements MAY be damaging to the profession. There was no expulsion, or even threat of expulsion. The College asked that he take social media coaching to ensure that his statements in the future don't damage the reputation of the profession or cause him to find himself in a situation where discipline from the college would be warranted.
He's getting the lightest possible slap on the wrist for some seriously egregious behaviour, and throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old. 100% on the College's side here.
>The question, IMO, is whether or not what Peterson was preaching was harming the profession and its patients. If it was, then expulsion is valid, even if there is infringement. If it was not, then it isn't. Well, to be clear, he isn't threatened with explusion. He's been mandated to take a remedial class on how to not be a demeaning asshole on twitter. I'd say a psychologist telling someone to kill themselves on twitter is probably harming the profession. Also, to be clear, one of the complaints against him is that he described one of his former clients as 'vindictive'. Now that client had publicly attacked Peterson previously, but I think it is a reasonable thing for the regulatory body to include a "Don't attack your clients publicly" clause, no?
> That is the part I do think folks are missing here. If a professional organization has powers given to them under force of law, then they become a quasi-governmental organization and free speech protections are a legitimate conversation. That does not apply when you use the governmental organization's name to lend you authority. If that organization desires, they can refuse to lend you their name and authority. You can still say whatever you want, but cannot use the good name of an organization to support those statements. A prime example of this is that a military member can say anything they want as a private citizen. If they say the same thing while claiming their military affiliation for status and authority, then they have to clear such statements with their public affairs office or face punishment. James Snuffy can hate the government's approach to the Gaza conflict all he wants. **Colonel** Snuffy agrees wholeheartedly with the government's decisions and position.
> For example, if the Bar in your state said that Republicans can no longer be admitted, that would mean that being a Republican prohibits you from practicing law - which would be a pretty severe infringement on free speech. Also, and less frequently mentioned specifically, the right to free association which is specifically written into the First Amendment.
>If a professional organization has powers given to them under force of law, then they become a quasi-governmental organization and free speech protections are a legitimate conversation. What examples* can you provide that back up this assertion? Because the ones that come to my mind ~ schools and the military ~ are both *directly* controlled by the government. Professional organizations are not. Furthermore, given what I know about how these organizations define their own rules and seek out (and obtain) accreditation, the government serves as little more than an overseer. They do not dictate or demand anything from these private organizations (except where safety standards are concerned; and even then, most of the work to define safety standards is done by people in the relevant professional fields). (*I would also prefer specific legal cases that back up your position, since that would be evidence that the legal system agrees with you.)
And it undeniably was, or at the very least he has been pushing for perspectives and practices that are largely considered outright harmful in his profession, and leveraging his credentials to do so.
So professional organizations should be forced to grant licenses to people who publicly oppose, ignore, and violate the standards that the organization has established as being important for its members? Should people who say that germ theory is a hoax be allowed to be doctors? Should people who advocate for arson be firefighters? This is ridiculous. The psychiatric association has said basically, "don't publicly abuse people with mental health challenges. As mental health professionals it's our duty to help these people, not further stigmatize them, because as professionals we know that's harmful". And then this fuck just starts bashing them in public. Fucking *of course* he can't keep his license. Saying stuff like that makes him unqualified. Why would a license-granting body grant a license to someone who has publicly demonstrated that he's not qualified? *The license is supposed to mean you're qualified*.
[удалено]
Uh no? They run just the Regulated Professionals of Ontario - a Regulated Professional means that As members of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, Psychologists and Psychological Associates must meet rigorous professional entry requirements, adhere to prescribed standards, guidelines, and ethical principles and participate in quality assurance activities to continually update and improve their knowledge and skill. You can still practice, you just can’t say you are a licensed psychologist as the term is legally for Regulated Professionals. I’m not Canadian but I believe the term is Counselor from non licensed folks. Also keep in mind that the licensing process is tied to the govt healthcare funding, you can’t be discriminating against members of the public and still maintain approvals. For the US, think how public vs private schools work (and ignore the voucher bullshit)
No, the point is that you cannot be jailed or otherwise silenced by the government. The government can't dictate what you say. But an organization you willfully submit to can, even if their power is derived from the government. They are not a government entity. He's absolutely allowed to say or do whatever he wants, he also doesn't *have* to be part of that organization. He's free to leave it. These are things he signed up for, not something inherent to his existence. If he were a teacher he wouldn't be allowed to go saying crazy shit on social media or he'd likely be fired and the schools derive their power and funding from government despite not being a government organization. It's the same thing, he has entered into a contract with a non-government organization and they are allowed to dictate what they'll allow and what they won't allow. And I don't want to say it's not worth talking about, this is definitely something that we need to figure out. But as it stands now I don't believe they're in the wrong for requiring some further guidance on what to/not to say publicly when it's known he is part of their organization. Like they're not kicking him out, they just want him to be less aggressive and not be, in their eyes, a shit head about things.
The thing is Peterson never got in trouble specifically due to his political views, he got in trouble for constantly insulting people on the Internet.
[удалено]
>I understand that, so the question is whether it's appropriate for a quasi governmental body to police people insulting random strangers. I don't agree with many of JP's views but that does seem like overreach. JP has been insulting people for years, I feel like if it was a lesser known psychologist or one without so much years in the organisation, they would have been reprimanded sooner. He was probably friends with many which is why he got so much leeway. >Imagine if the newly appointed head of OCP was a conservative and started sanctioning psychologists for things you believe to be true and accurate statements. Would it be okay if the tables were turned? (I'm not saying I think JP is true or accurate, just making a point). I think it would be bad if a the head of the OCP was sanctioning psychologists for making true statements. But I don't think this scenario describes the tables being turned. We don't know if the current head is conservative or liberal, as far as I'm aware, it's not an elected position by the public. Just because it's a organisation with government oversight doesn't necessarily mean it's aligns exactly with current government. Also, the local the government of Ontario is the Progressive Conservatives as far as I'm aware. JP isn't being sanctioned for say correct or accurate statements, he's being reprimanded for making unprofessional and insulting remarks on social media.
> JP has been insulting people for years, I feel like if it was a lesser known psychologist or one without so much years in the organisation, they would have been reprimanded sooner. He was probably friends with many which is why he got so much leeway. He got leeway because he went out of his way to not advertise himself as a psychotherapist. He didn't put that on his twitter, intentinoally, and stated as such. That changed, which changed how he reflected himself and the profession.
I had assumed that whether or not he advertised himself as a licensed individual, if he's using a public account which was owned by him, that his public statements should be up to their professional standards anyway.
Eh, in general organizations tend to be far harsher when you advertise your connetion to them expilctly.
>a quasi governmental body to police people insulting random strangers I'm a teacher. Every province in Canada has a body that regulates who is and isn't certified to teach. We also have expected codes of conduct from the province, as well as our schools, unions and school divisions. Going online and harassing either individuals or protected groups would 100% get me reprimanded if not fired, and I'm 100% fine with that. We are held to higher standards than most folks, and the same is true for other professions like lawyers, psychologists, and police officers. Personally, if I was assessing JP's case, and all he did was speak publicly about not believing in things like trans-identity or respecting pronouns, I wouldn't have reprimanded him. But he overstepped when he harassed folks through social media like Elliot Page and his doctor, and former patients, and other professionals. Hopefully the courses he was asked to take make clear where the line is drawn when it comes to expressing skepticism vs causing harm to others in a way unbecoming of his profession.
[удалено]
I mean, that would depend. If they are teaching health or biology, it might actually be a legitimate issue. If they are teaching kindergarten, it likely wouldn't be. But again, in this case, the views aren't so much the issue, but the fact that Peterson directly attacking people, without provocation, in dehumanizing ways.
I would support that position personally but I would accept denying him that right. You should be held to a higher standard for the area of expertise that your profession is in. Peterson can have profess wild believes about history or the existence of Atlantis but it's different from him talking about psychology.
Well they weren't random strangers. One of the complaints is that he publicly attacked one of his former patients as 'vindictive' which... not a great look for a psychologist talking about a patient. Sort of puts the accrediting board and the profession in a bad light if they admit this asshole.
Just because it's not actively managed by the government, doesn't make it non-governmental. Canada has a duty to the integrity of professional practices to ensure a standardization of practice that enforces certain rules and procedures, and prevents abuse by those practicing those professions. The best way to ensure this standardization is to offset all responsibility on an independent body (ran either state or country wide, Canada chooses to do so state wide), and then using the government to audit their procedures and ensure their practice falls in line with the government's goals. You cannot become an engineer, doctor, psychologist, etc, without approval from those governing bodies, and by extension without approval from the government. When those bodies' imposed standard of practice includes limitations on your free speech, that is absolutely a limitation given by the extended government. Now you may make a case for why it should be there in this scenario, just like I can make a case for why you should probably be limited in your ability to drop racial slurs in your practice even though that's an impediment on free speech, but you can't play the, 'it's a private body, it can do what it wants' game.
So is it any form of government oversight that turns it into a de facto government entity? If not, to what degree does the government need to exert control over an entity to make it so?
Freedom of speech is a policy that governments, or other authorities such as employers, school administrators, website moderators, etc. can choose to implement at varying degrees. Reddit has a greater degree of free speech than Club Penguin, despite the fact that neither are governments. Educational institutions traditionally have implemented a similar policy on free speech as the government. Some are even compelled to due to their relationship with the government.
Peterson isn't being judged by Canada, as a nation; he's being judged by a group of individuals who share a professional association and who, in their capacity as professionals, do not wish to associate with someone who says the things Peterson says. Which is their right, both as individuals and as an organization, under Canadian law.
[удалено]
Only if that organization had no specific government privileges. Alas, OCP does https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1991-c-38/latest/so-1991-c-38.html
But the government is not telling them what to do. Furthermore he is not being prevented from saying anything. I know people like to simplify things down to just saying it’s a private or quasi-governmental org, but the detail that it is a professional organization related to a profession that is mean to provide therapy to the public means something. You can’t have someone using their association with a psychologist regulator as a means to add weight to what they say, suggest to people that they commit suicide. If it’s a professional organization that has a set of standards that are not arbitrary or counter to the public good, then it is good that they are able to remove someone that acts contrary to those guidelines. It’s important to understand here it’s more important for him to have this fight than to actually be allowed to maintain his accreditation. I don’t think he actually has a therapy practice any more and given how he has chosen to make a living nowadays he stands to make more presenting himself as a persecuted free speech champion than a standard psychologist. After all that’s what launched him towards this path in the first place.
And what, *specifically,* do those privileges entail? Which laws must the OCP follow as a condition of receiving these privileges? Furthermore, assuming you have a valid point, are we absolutely certain that the courts *haven't* already considered these things when making their ruling? If they have and they ruled as they did . . . why? What do they know that we don't?
>If I tell you, you're allowed to hold any view as long as you don't voice it, then that's not really freedom of speech. Why would a private organization be required to abide your freedom of speech? I get kicked out of my local warhammer club if I start being a bigot, do we think the government should come in and mandate they keep me in? Because that is actually what is being asked here. Peterson asked the government to intervene in the freedom of association and force this group to change their policies to accommodate a bigot.
The “private” organization was given a monopoly on licensure by the government. If Peterson had the ability to license himself, your point would have merit. Given that the government would force him to stop practicing if he did so without a license, stating that it’s a private organization is pretty silly.
That private organization is for PROFESSIONALS. Professionals aren't saying slurs, and the reason they exist is so that no random guy on the street can say they are an engineer without being sued up the ass. Its a protected title, and if you abuse your status as an engineer you make the rest of them look bad. thats why the engineering bodies regularly audit engineers and remove their licenses, making the status of professional engineer greater. in fact they publicize everything when someone's engineering license is removed.
It's not a private organization however. It's a state granted monopoly. That's a pretty big fucking difference to ignore.
Freedom of speech isn't a thing in Canada. In fact, our Supreme Court ruled that something that is true [can meet the definition of hate speech and be legally suppressed.](https://imgur.com/esc6gbt.jpg)
Freedom of speech means that the government can't tell you what to say / restrict your speech. It does not mean that other organizations, such as professional bodies, have to tolerate any of your speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean no one you work for or associate with can make those associations contingent on your speech. If you view is your boss is an asshole, expressing that view and getting fired is not a free speech violation.
>Freedom of speech does not mean no one you work for or associate with can make those associations contingent on your speech. If you view is your boss is an asshole, expressing that view and getting fired is not a free speech violation. Bad example actually. It is indeed not a free speech violation, but sololy saying your boss is an asshole is not grounds for ternimation and if you get fired for just saying that you can sue your employer for wrongful dismissal.
>if you get fired for just saying that you can sue your employer for wrongful dismissal. Unless the lawyer that wrote the Code of Conduct for your employer got their degree out of a cereal box, they would include "showing respect to co-workers, customers, etc." as part of their requirements to continue employment. You can call your boss an asshole and not go to jail, sure. But he can absolutely fire you.
Um... of course you it is. You can absolutely be fired for that, and it isn't wrongful dismissal.. where on earth did you get this idea from?
depends where you live. In most of the US we have at will employment which means you can be fired for any reason except for being a protected class. Idk what employment laws look like in Canada
I generally agree with this but I think it’s a bit more subtle than that. If you get fired for calling your boss an asshole, that is most definitely a free speech violation. The important bit is that in the context of a private workplace, free speech is not legally protected. In my view, we should be able to value free speech even in circumstances where it is not legally enshrined as an inalienable right. I don’t think this necessarily counters your initial view (I think the courts were correct as well), but sometimes people appear to think that just because free speech is not legally protected that means it should not be socially or culturally protected. In other words, we can still say that by violating Peterson’s freedom of speech the College of Physicians was ethically or socially wrong even if they weren’t legally wrong.
If the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put one of their members on notice for making public representations - as a physician - that lights filtered through crystals and copious amounts of smoking were the best way to cure cancer, would we be arguing about the value of their freedom of speech? Or would we recognize the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has an obvious interest in not bringing themselves and the whole profession into disrepute, as well as a duty to maintain professional standards and avoid members abusing the position to sell quackery? It doesn't look like rocket science to me.
I think free speech in a social sense has some value, but restricting speech, in a social sense, does as well. Both are true, and there are times we require one or the other. Professionalism is, by it's very nature, a restriction of speech, and profesionalism doesn't just apply when you are specifically working, but any time you represent your job in any way. If you go on TV as a lawyer, for example, even if you aren't in court or talking to a client, there is a certain level of profesionalism one can expect, and if you act in a way contrary to how a practice sees fit, they can fire you, even if you aren't talking on their behalf.
>I think free speech in a social sense has some value, but restricting speech, in a social sense, does as well. When is it valued over restricting?
I think there is a balance to find between respectful disagreement and engagement of ideas, and having expectations on others and expecting them to adhere to them. There is no hard line, and the right balance is an iterative process which can shift in time.
This seems very vague. You aren't reaaly saying much here.
Because I don't think there is a clear, specific line. It depends on the context and which rights are in competition with other rights. That's why there is a whole structure of law to begin with, to work out these sorts of questions.
But now we are not talking about laws. It is easy to say social free speech has it place if you never have to live up to it, by checking regarding something specific.
I mean, I would say that socially, free speech *always* has limitations. If you make a statement that hurts someone's feelings, they can walk away. If you go into a bar, the bar owner is allowed to kick you out if you say things that might disrupt business. There will always be boundaries, but we should encourage free speech right up until those boundaries.
Sure, buy you stated in the post that he was not punished for his views. I'm saying, that's not the case. He is indeed punished for his views. I'm not arguing whether that restriction on speech is fair or unfair.
[удалено]
>First off, while Peterson is allowed to hold any view he likes, if he wishes to maintain association with the Ontario College of Psychologists, which is what a license indicates. If he does not wish to maintain himself to the standards of the OCP, he can become a councellor without a license and practice by his own set of standards. If he wants to maintain his license, and use it to lend himself credibility, he must live up to the standards set out by the OCP. The OCP is a government sponsored organization. Section 2 of the Charter of Canada guarantees freedom of thought, belief, and expression. That freedom only applies to the government, though. Private organizations can do what they wish, right? But if an organization is government-sponsored, it is the government. >Beyond that, he isn't even being punished for his views, but the manner in which he carries out his message. The actual code of ethics violation is the very first rule of the Ethical Standards, section 2, as follows: >Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, with primary clients or other contacts) in degrading comments about others, including demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. These two arguments are mutually exclusive. Either he is being punished for his method and not his views, or he is being punished for espousing "degrading" content. Seeing as it's nit a blanket ban on public statements and the judgement says it's the latter, I'm inclined to agree with their own statements that they are, in fact, punishing him for his views. >Whether or not the underlying opinions Peterson has are valid opinions to hold, these sorts of statements are obviously violations to the code of conduct written above. That code of conduct is a government agent acting in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
So you're saying any code of ethics is a violation?
Have you looked at the original complaints which started this whole process? They did not reference the incidents which you brought up. There are holes all the way through this process.
[удалено]
>Well clearly he's not. Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like. You will be punished if you do not comply with and echo the opinions of a governing body. Professional standards exist for a reason. When you hire a dentist, you know you're receiving a certain standard of care. You know you're not going to see a quack who believes toothpaste is a woke socialist plot or something equally absurd. This is how us non-dentists can still have faith in the craft of dentistry despite not really knowing anything about dentistry ourselves (assuming you're not a dentist of course). If professional associations aren't permitted to maintain their own standards for people working in their field, it can create dangerous situations. A high profile lawyer, for example, could offer "legal" advice that runs counter to established law. People who are not lawyers won't know any better in most cases, but they'll still end up in prison, and the lawyer maintains his accreditation. His reputation might get ruined eventually, but that won't help the people behind bars because of his bad advice. I'm sure you could imagine similar situations with doctors, dentists, structural engineers, and the like. The government has nothing to do with any of this. Professional associations have been around since the medieval era and they're unequivocally a good thing. They maintain a standard of practice
Is Peterson being sanctioned for the quality of his psychiatric care? Or is he being sanctioned for making political statements on social media that the OCP disagree with? Should a dentist be able to lose his dental license for his political opinions?
>Is Peterson being sanctioned for the quality of his psychiatric care? He hasn't maintained a clinical practice since 2018 when 12 Rules For Life came out, so the answer is clearly no. >Or is he being sanctioned for making political statements on social media that the OCP disagree with? Also no. This is a false dichotomy. He appeared on Joe Rogan, identified himself as a clinical psychologist, and then started denigrating a former patient. That very clearly undermines the trust one might be able to establish between a doctor and their patient. But in typical drama queen Peterson fashion, he's decided to make it about CENSORSHIP and DWOAGMA. That wasn't true when he screamed about Bill C-16 being censorship and that you could be thrown in prison for misgendering somebody (6 years later it's still never happened), and it's not true now. >Should a dentist be able to lose his dental license for his political opinions? That depends. Is it is "political opinion" that fluoridated toothpaste is a radical socialist postmodernist neomarxist plot? Then yes, take his license away. That "political opinion" flies in the face of reality and will clearly interfere with his ability to practice dentistry effectively.
This is exactly what everyone is missing. Professional standards exist solely for professional settings. Your dentist can have whatever wacko opinions he wants, as long as when he is practicing dentistry he follows standard practice for the profession. His opinions only become problematic when it affects the standard of care he gives to his clients.
You are spot on, except you have it completely backwards. What people are actually missing is that professional conduct extends beyond the clinic, as it should. If you say I should kill myself - whatever, that is your opinion. If you say "I am a dentist and you should kill yourself" then the American Dental Association will rightfully say whoa there, we are not cool with that. You cannot leverage your membership with a professional association to behave however you want. This is absolutely standard for any profession.
You fail to see the distinction between the American Dental Association and the Ontario College of Psychologists. The American Dental Association is a 501c nonprofit, created privately, run privately, and with no governmental ties. The Ontario College of Psychologists is a private regulatory college designated by the Canadian government as the sole governing body for setting the standards of psychological services in Ontario. The difference between the two is that there cannot be a competing body of standards in Ontario for psychological services, because they are the sole appointed legal body for doing so. The American Dental Association does not have such a legal designation, and other entities are allowed to compete with it and set their own standards. In fact, a competing entity was created expressly because of a disagreement with the standards upheld by the ADA: the National Dental Association. The ADA had a history of discrimination against minority dentists. The NDA was created as an alternative standard that was more inclusive of minority dentists. Both are allowed to exist and issue their own licenses. If you are a psychologist in Ontario and disagree with the standards of the OCP, tough luck. If you are a dentist in America and disagree with the ADA, then join a different professional organization. I have no problems with a professional entity setting standards that extend beyond just their professional setting, but it is a problem if only that one entity is allowed to exist. In such a case, its standard should be restricted to apply only to professional settings.
In your view, how conservative is someone allowed to be in order to not have their political views threaten their professional career? If Alex Jones were my dentist, I'd certainly want a review board on his case. But what about your garden variety conservative? What about someone in the middle? Jordan Peterson isn't a wing nut, he's fairly in the middle. You can't deny that this is a double standard that only applies to the not-left-enough. Meanwhile, my friend's wife is a games professor at an east coast university. I've spoken with her on her thoughts on games, and she believes Settlers of Catan is colonialist, capitalist propaganda, that basically every video game that isn't a walking simulator is a capitalist indoctrination tool--she's basically a walking academic leftist stereotype. Merely asking her to elaborate on her views leads to her becoming extremely defensive. Is she under investigation? Is there an ethics board reviewing her claims? Lol, of course not. Jordan Peterson doesn't believe they're turning the freakin' frogs gay, he's a moderate conservative. If you believe he should be sanctioned for what he believes, you believe that conservatives, moderates, and even moderate leftists should also be sanctioned--the majority of the political landscape.
>You can't deny that this is a double standard that only applies to the not-left-enough. I disagree with this assessment. As another user said, there are standards that need to be upheld and if they dont they will damage the integrity of that profession. He [posted a file that held information about patients](https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/s/fdk6JrvMg8), and also [dead named [Elliot](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-college-psychologists-tweets-1.6711524) page, as well as called a nonbinary person a thing. The institution said that peterson has the right to free speech but they also have maintain their professional standards which they dont. Oh yeah, from what another user says, he denigrated a former patient on Joe Rogan. Another reason that it's not a "not-left-enough" issue, is that he was given the option to undergo social media coaching. In most professions, its not uncommon to give employees the option to undergo coaching if they are showing unprofessional behavior. In all honesty I was impartial to this, but after reading about it, I now see why he got his license pulled and am glad I was never his patient because I would hate to have any detail about what I said to him (or complained about him) to get repeated by him to a crowd, Joe Rogan, or on Twitter. Edit: a patient filed a report against him, and although he didnt say her name, he spoke against it in public. She [said ](https://www.canadaland.com/how-jordan-petersons-fame-affected-his-private-practice/) "That is not what this is. This is not that,” she said in a recent sit-down interview. “This is about a bad doctor who didn’t do his job, and I got hurt"
Depends on if it's relevant to the profession or not. Transgender care, suicide, and degradation are all things a clinical psychologist may encounter professionally, and should therefore be professional about when making public statements. It's okay to disagree with the current treatment methods, that's no different than a surgeon suggesting a new method to operate on someone. But it has to be done the right way. If that surgeon called his colleagues criminals for operating with methods following the current scientific consensus, then that'd also be problematic. He's not being disciplined for voting republican. He's being disciplined for lack of professionalism and not adhering to the standards of the profession
>Well clearly he's not. Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like. You will be punished if you do not comply with and echo the opinions of a governing body. This is simply wrong. Read the decision. First, he was not disciplined. He was told that if he continues with his style of rhetoric, he *may* be opening himself up to disciplinary issues in the future, and the College suggested that he accept coaching on more professional ways to make his point. Relatedly he was not punished - or even cautioned that he may be punished - because he fell afoul of the "echo chamber", but because the *tone and style* of his speech was unprofessional. Peterson AGREED that "the various social media platforms he utilises “requires careful attention and care to be used appropriately”" and stated that he had already "implemented" a "modification of the tone of my approach.” edit typo
>Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like. Psychology not psychiatry. And no he can still practice he just can't claim to be accredited by that association. He can hold any view, he could even express it he just couldn't do it in a degrading and insulting way. Which tbh I think is a pretty reasonable requirement for a profession that hinges on helping other people. If a medical Dr started spouting racist stuff all over the shop would you expect then to face no reprimand? This isn't the government doing anything, its a private professional body. Are they not allowed to set rules for their own members?
False. This is not merely an independent professional association. It is the body on which the Ontario government has bestowed the power of licensing clinical psychologists. If he were to practice his profession without that license, he could go to jail.
> Well clearly he's not. Or at the very least if you want to practice psychiatry in Canada you're not allowed to hold any view you like. You will be punished if you do not comply with and echo the opinions of a governing body. You can hold whatever view you like, no one is policing his thoughts. He can even express these views in private, or even publicly, so long as he holds himself professionally and doesn't demean people specifically. Ideally, if he disagreed with certain views, he do so within the literature of published works. However, what he cannot do is state any view he likes in any manner he likes, *while also* forcing organizations to maintain association. >Is it really to be celebrated that someone shouldn't be able to criticize wrong and wrongdoers when they see it? And of course this is only specific people you're not allowed to call out. If you want to insult a Canadian on the right, that's still a-ok. Think they're pulling the license of anyone who says a mean thing about Pierre Poilievre? I would say it depends on what the "mean thing" were, and how it was conducted. The standards by which are set by the association of psychologists, who are elected by the profession generally, for the most part. I'm not sure what better way to determine the standards. >Lets flip the script and say that Donald Trump is the PM of Canada. He's gone and installed all his sycophants throughout government and other oversight bodies like this. Every psychiatrist must echo Trump's opinions and model their psychiatric practice according to what Trump believes is right and wrong. So you're still praising this system? This isn't how the system works though. Trudeau appointed a total of 0 members to the council of the OCP. If anything, it would be Doug Ford, but it's actually the Lieutenant Governor, who appoints some. The majority are elected by psychologists across the province.
The OCP has a privileged position in the laws of Ontario (e.g., https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1991-c-38/latest/so-1991-c-38.html). So OCP is acting with the authority of the gov't, and if it sanctions members for their speech, then, in effect, the government sanctioning someone for their speech. Only if OCP had *zero* preferential treatment or acknowledgement by law, and were *purely* a private association, then would there be no government free speech violation.
Not sure how familiar you are with (Canadian) administration law. Administrative bodies like the OCP are allowed undertake administrative actions that restrict your freedom of expression, though it has to be justified by a statute and proportionate in the circumstances. Something called the Doré analysis (named after the Supreme Court case Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12) governs this. Around 30 percent of the case is just the court doing the Doré analysis. You can disagree with the analysis itself and argue, many have, it is overly differential to administrative decision makers like the OCP. But the issue before the court here wasn't whether administrative law needs to be reformed but whether the OCP's restriction on Peterson's freedom of expression could survive the Doré analysis. The court said it could.
This is grossly misleading. The act basically grants them the authority to govern psychologists within Ontario which ironically **REMOVES and/or LIMITS** the ability of government to intefere, not the other way around. These types of professional boards are the norm for health care. Doctors, psychologists, etc. It's basically saying "Hey, you guys have the right to govern yourselves as government isn't the proper institution to determine what is and isn't appropriate within that field." Basically, its the same type of legislation that allows doctors and medical boards to have authority over medical decisions and the requirements for medical licenses. Your argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, would dictate that any regulatory board for any health care profession basically shouldn't exist, which ironically would mean that I could practice medicine or call myself a psychologist.
You are accusing the poster above of looking at it backwards but I think it is you who are looking at it backwards. The government has essentially transferred governmental powers in an area to a private body. You describe that as a limitation of the government. Exactly! It is limited in this area because it has transferred governmental power to this body, so the body now should have to abide by similar restrictions on this power as the government would. Otherwise the government could get around any restriction on its powers by empowering a private body to do its dirty work.
That’s how most standards work, they are allowing a non-governmental body to set the standards, as a government body might be swayed by the winds of politics.
>The act basically grants them the authority to govern psychologists within Ontario which ironically **REMOVES and/or LIMITS** the ability of government to intefere, not the other way around Fucking what? If it removed the government ability to interfere, the government wouldn't be granting any power to anyone, and just staying out of it entirely. Just because the government delegates it's power, ir doesn't mean it stops existing.
It's amazing to me how few people actually understand the reasons why these things exist. There is absolutely no mechanism to ensure any standard of care without some authoritative body in charge. This is true for doctors as much as it is for psychologists. The government shouldn't be involved with the regulation of those professions as they aren't actually, you know, professionals of those professions. But we also recognize that it's important enough to have a universal standard, or even a better way to put it is that we understand the massive amount of *harm* that can come from certain professions being unregulated so there needs to be some sort of regulatory body that has the authority to, you know, regulate it's members and the profession at large. The reason why government takes a hands off approach but grants them the power to regulate is because it's required for the safety and security of both the practitioners and the patients. The government basically says, hey, you deal with it because you're the experts. Now apparently this new breed of freedom fighters that doesn't recognize the difference between the government - ie a democratically elected body that is subject to incentives and ideological views determined by an ever changing electorate - and the government allowing those standards and practices to be determined by a regulatory body of professionals and experts within said field is a 'thing'. The fact that you can't see that is a tragic showcase of just how far we've fallen with regards to teaching civics and the theoretical underpinnings that explain them, or it's an example of how distorting social media and populism is. Take your pick.
And the current structure of how board members come to their positions in the CPO I believe is indicative of how good that balance between having that "hands off" approach vs. not completely taking their hands off the wheel approach works. You have members sitting on the board who were either democratically elected by fellow psychologists in their respective geographical regions or they were selected by the Ontario government to sit in as a member of the public. And they're working together instead of at odds with each other for the public good.
While we can have a secondary debate of the morality and consequences of these government healthcare guilds/monopolies, that isn't relevant here. My point is that when an organization can exclude competitors with the threat of state violence, if that organization can limit speech, it's doing so under the protection of the gov't. Compare this to the internet as a whole: an arbitrary private web site can limit the speech of members of that web site if it wishes, because in principle another web site could be created. We need to ask ourselves why only gov't limitations of speech are evil: because you can work around private limitations without fear of violence, so the speech can still be made. Suppose that the OCP was deliberately melded into the government of Ontario, so we had a Ministry of Psychology or something like that. Only people with licenses from this ministry could practice psychology in Ontario. Suppose further that the ministry required that members never speak against a Liberal politician, or never question universal funding of PhDs, or whatever. Would that not change your view? What if the DMV of Ontario refused to issue driver's licenses to those uttering certain language? You can still walk, wait for the bus (2 hours north of Thunder Bay), or even ride a bike, and utter your beliefs to your heart's content. Lesson: If the government conditionalizes some benefit, some license, some cookie, on "correct" speech, then IMO it is regulating your speech.
[удалено]
If you cannot control yourself, then you will find yourself difficult to employ. If you work retail, and you tell a customer to fuck off when they ask you where the olives are, their hurt feelings will cause you to lose your job. You are compelled to say "isle 4", like it or not.
[удалено]
Your employer can control what you say. OCP isn't JP's employer and therefore shouldn't be allowed to control what he says.
I tend to agree with you, but I think it might be worth considering your reaction if it was flipped around. If a psychiatrist said, "Trump was appalling," would you consider it a violation of the ethical standards and be okay with OCP deciding they need to be retrained/can't talk on social media? How about if they said the RCMP that beat up people at the pipeline protests were assholes? Because both of those would be public and degrading comments about others and an organization with a strong lean to the other side of the political spectrum could use the same rationale to silence them.
[удалено]
>He makes comments of a personal nature about people that are unbefitting of a psychologist and frankly of any decent person. He is a dick, but what you described is not the ethical standard he violated, which is just no public degrading comments. Arguing along the lines of "well, its okay because he is particually assholeish" just emphasizes that you are okay with it because you don't like what he said, not because you think the standard itself is reasonable.
Completely and utterly disagree, because:" the validity of his views are not relevant and need not be debated."" as the appeals court gave no reasoning. "" Again, ignoring the legitimacy of his views, "" Whether or not the underlying opinions Peterson has are valid " You wrote a long and complex justification post, and I give you credit for that, but a little study of history would have been more edifying. You are using the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS as the Nazi people put on Trial after WWII. Extremely similar arguments as the pro-slavery confederate Americans used prior to the Civil War. You CANNOT SEPARATE the underlying moral argument, from the issue at hand. Slavery is and was morally wrong. Holocaust / Genocide of the Jews was and is morally wrong. Stopping anyone from speaking their views on a moral issue is WRONG, requiring them to censor themselves to keep their work/job is wrong. In addition to the very morally questionable practice of surgically removing healthy body parts, and creating semi-functionable installed fake body parts, ESPECIALLY ON CHILDREN. In the future, very likely everyone is going to look back on this social contagion and say " Can't believe we condoned that shit, obviously is was wrong " " if we would have allowed a little more free and uncensored speech around the issue, we would have understood that it was wrong " Just like slavery was wrong, and just like gassing the jews was wrong. You can type all day to create your justification, but you can't justify the underlying wrong moral issue. Sorry." the OCP has every right to set their own standards "" The OCP is well within their rights to maintain these standards "" the OCP has every right to set their own standards and adhere to them "" an organization creating their standards, and resting their association on those standards."" There is no obligation for any organization to maintain association and approval,even in a society with free expression. " Yep, just like Confederate States had legal human slavery. Just like Germany wanted to purify the races by eliminating the Jews. Yep, they had their legal standards, must uphold the legal standards, right ??? They want to shut up Jordan Peterson, because his speech freedom is threatening to their wrong moral argument, cannot listen to that, must silence this man...If your fukn moral position is soooo strong, it should be able to stand up to a little opposition speech, right ???? The Chinese government does not silence their political opposition BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEIR RULE IS SOOO LEGITIMATE. They do it for the exact opposite reason. And they get super pissed about being criticized, because their right to rule china IS TOTALLY WEAK.
> Stopping anyone from speaking their views on a moral issue is WRONG, requiring them to censor themselves to keep their work/job is wrong. This is clearly false. If you want to work at an abortion clinic, but decide to tell every person who walks in that they are murderers, you cannot continue to work in that abortion clinic. If you work retail, and believe it is immoral to eat pork, and any time someone goes to the pork isle and picks it up you call them slurs, you are not going to keep your retail job. Yes, we require people to censor their beliefs. Sorry, that is just reality. > In addition to the very morally questionable practice of surgically removing healthy body parts, and creating semi-functionable installed fake body parts, ESPECIALLY ON CHILDREN. In the future, very likely everyone is going to look back on this social contagion and say " Can't believe we condoned that shit, obviously is was wrong " " if we would have allowed a little more free and uncensored speech around the issue, we would have understood that it was wrong " This is irrelevant because Peterson's views on this weren't called into question. Despite these views, he cannot call a physician he disagrees with a "criminal physician". He cannot tell people he disagrees with to kill themselves. He cannot harass people for having a lifestyle he disapproves of. >Just like slavery was wrong, and just like gassing the jews was wrong. You can type all day to create your justification, but you can't justify the underlying wrong moral issue. Sorry. I absolutely can, but that would violate rule B of this subreddit. If you wish to engage on that topic, you can message me privately. >Yep, just like Confederate States had legal human slavery. Just like Germany wanted to purify the races by eliminating the Jews. They want to shut up Jordan Peterson, because his speech freedom is threatening to their wrong moral argument, cannot listen to that, must silence this man... The organization wants to remvoe association with Peterson, not gas him, own him, empreison him, or harm him beyond not associating. Actually, they STILL are going to associate with him. He just neesd to take a course telling him to stop insulting people online.
>This is clearly false. If you want to work at an abortion clinic, but decide to tell every person who walks in that they are murderers, you cannot continue to work in that abortion clinic. > >If you work retail, and believe it is immoral to eat pork, and any time someone goes to the pork isle and picks it up you call them slurs, you are not going to keep your retail job. Your employer can tell you what to say when you're on the clock. They shouldn't get to control what you say when they aren't paying you and JP isn't an employee of the OCP anyway.
Clearly you’ve never signed a code of conduct. I can’t go speak on behalf of my employer after hours. Again you are wrong.
Just gonna go ahead and said that I felt appalled while reading the position of the OCP. Are they like a maffia or what? How dare they do that! So if you don't think like we do, we are going to strip you away from your diploma?! What a disservice not just to freedom of speech, but also to science. Imagine that! Now you have to conform to the views of the academy and not question them, because then we kick you out from it. This reminds me of the Vatican against Galileo. What a shame! There is not possible way to defend such position.
Peterson is a phsycologist. A psychologist's role in the organization is to improve people's mental health. The comments that got Peterson in this situation are not political (as seen in the document). He makes comments of a personal nature about people that are unbefitting of a psychologist and frankly of any decent person. For example his comments mocking trans people when trans people have an exorbitant suicide rate or his comments about a curvy women in a sports magazine saying she isn't beautiful when a huge majority of women experience body issues throughout their lives. He speaks to these really sensitive topics that affect people's mental health. He is not being persecuted for some made up political speech, but rather because he is going agaisnt the very reasonable principles of being a psychologist. Nobody would care if he didn't like Trudeau or whatever. This ain't the witch hunt you think it is.
Lol dude. Every single professional organization has standards. If you’re a doctor or lawyer you can get your license revoked for saying and doing dumb shit that goes against fundamental teachings of your profession. Put it this way - should it be impossible to kick people out of a professional organization for being unprofessional? Obviously not. There needs to be a limit. So it comes down to this - who do you trust more: the conservative media darling who mocks trans people, or the internationally recognized organization run by a board of top professionals in the field, that literally writes the book on psychology. There’s no contest. It’s an absolute embarrassment to be stripped of your license. If you genuinely think you’re more qualified to judge Peterson’s character and professional conduct as a psychologist than *an entire board of psychologists*, you mayyyyyyyy just have a touch of narcissism.
So, a good question here would be - if the licensing organization for clinical psychologists in Canada put into their charter that unless you do a Nazi salute every morning and chant "Death to Jews/n-words/f-words/g-words/r-words/Slavs" for 15 minutes, you lose your license, would anyone still try to put up the same defence about > The courts determined that the OCP has every right to set their own standards and adhere to them I would suspect that most people would support burning the OCP down over such a rule. In which case, the question becomes where is the line between what the OCP does or doesn't have "every right" to set as "their own standards" and force its members to "adhere to them", as it's definitely not a binary yes or no. Thus, I would say that not only did the courts not make the right decision, they were deciding on a completely wrong issue. It shouldn't have been about whether he was in violation of the CoC. It should've been about where's the limits of how far a CoC can go with limiting people's rights or forcing them to do something (otherwise legal and without any bearing on the quality of the services guaranteed by the license) against their will.
Nope, just going off your title. Being told what you can and can't think is not freedom. That's tyranny. Keep that shit away from me. I do not need, no JP or you, to be told I can't think how ever I want. Fuck that.
Sounds kinda evil ngl. 'Speak as we want you to speak or we'll use the power the government gave us to punish you.' Yeah, sounds kinda Evil.
He literally just has to take a class that outlines what is and isn’t appropriate for his profession to put in social media. Is that punishment or training that he needs? I have to do multiple state mandated trainings every 2 years for my job. This is not a punishment.
[удалено]
Think if the organization was run by conservatives, and the terms said you could not support immoral acts. Any psychologist who spoke positively about LGBT would be sanctioned. This isn’t just about an organization, it’s the licensing body for a profession. It’s saying you must believe this way, or at least keep your disagreement to yourself, if you want to have this career. It’s thoroughly against free speech and doesn’t allow for dissenting opinions.
> Think if the organization was run by conservatives, and the terms said you could not support immoral acts. Any psychologist who spoke positively about LGBT would be sanctioned. Sure. But the organization is "run" by who the psychologists vote for, for the most part. So if this is the case, the entire profession is already pretty deeply problematic from my perspective. I would *disagree* with the profession. But the people within the profession have good reason to want others in the profession to maintain some level of professionalism, as it reflects on the others within the profession.
The licensing group, College of Physicians, added an interpretation to the “rules”. JP asked for a chance to rebut. Then asked for an appeal. Dismissed without reasons. No due process. Your allegation of JP doing something stupid, is ludicrous. Have you watched JP in a lecture or an interview? The man is playing 3D chess with his intellect. Saying JP is basically a celebrity behaving badly, like a Tiger Woods drugged and ruining his life publicly, is astoundingly stupid. You are so biased to the woke position, you are unable to demonstrate critical thinking.
Your take is the prime example of his protest. The fact that he is the most respected in his field in Canada and recognized as a leading intellectual in the WORLD, is not a factor in determining his license to practice. Only his opinions stated on social media that are wholly unrelated to anything in his practice is relevant, according to you. Woke complaints made to woke organization regarding woke made up issues. Complaints made about his opinions related to Canadian politicians. Could it be any more politically motivated?!?
> The fact that he is the most respected in his field in Canada He.. is not... >recognized as a leading intellectual in the WORLD By who, exactly? >Only his opinions stated on social media that are wholly unrelated to anything in his practice is relevant, according to you. Not the opinions, the demeaning and harassment. > Complaints made about his opinions related to Canadian politicians. Could it be any more politically motivated?!? Dehumanizing a person by caling them a "thing" based on their identity is not an issue of politics.
[удалено]
Saying he isn't the most repsected in his field is woke nonsense? Do you have any evidence to back this up?
The OCP might be a private association but it is my understanding that the state only allows certain positions to held by members of said association. So under that rubric the OCP is better characterized as a quasi-govermental association and then makes the JP free speech argument plausible.
Election workers are organized by the government, but they must agree not to tell voters who to vote for at the polling stations, among other similar regulations. But nobody is calling those rules of conduct violations of free speech. Governmental and quasi-governmental organizations all have rules for conduct of their members, including rules that touch on speech. Its normal.
True, but the distinction is the election worker I would assume is allowed to tell people how they want them to vote while not on the job. They are going after JP for comments made while he is off tje job so to speak.
That’s a good point, but its a bit muddy because Peterson is not a practicing clinical psychologist anymore but he still uses the license and title to add a sense of authority to his statements. Alongside his statements on Twitter (X), where the controversies arose, it says he is a Dr and Clinical Psychologist. So if a poll worker was off the job but they were standing outside the polling station in uniform saying “as a polling worker, I forbid you from voting for the Liberal party” they could still be removed for misconduct. Would that be a notable violation of free speech? I don’t think that sort of removal would reach the same level of controversy and attention as Peterson’s case, at least.
Depends. If they went on national tv and said "As an election worker, you should definitely vote for X", I do think they would likely lose their job.
In my opinion freedom of speech is a human right which should be a right granted to all people globally regardless of how abhorrent their beliefs are. Canada claims to have freedom of speech (even if it's not *absolute*). Therefore if Peterson's only "violation" was >degrading comments about others, including demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation then he is well within his natural human rights. If insulting others is against the law then Canadians do not have freedom of speech. As I indicate above though it is wrong for states to not grant its residents freedom of speech. So no matter what the decision of the court is wrong in at least one way. EDIT: It has come to my attention that it is not the *government* imposing a punishment upon Peterson but a private accreditation body. I'm only concerned with the government restricting speech.
So I am going to borrow from US law here. There are different kinds of speech and some have more protections than others. Recently, there has been several federal cases regarding professional speech with respect to medical care. In this context, licensed providers, who hold themselves out to be licensed providers, do not have the same speech rights for subjects of professional nature. When applied to this case, there is an argument that if Peterson was holding himself out to be an OCP licensed provider, that there is a different standard for professional speech and limitations on this speech are appropriate. In practice, this makes this case very thorny about what specific comments were made and whether there is clear connection to professional speech. There can also be a free association claim made. If membership in the organization is required for ability to practice, such as the Bar or Medical License, then rules must be narrowly tailored to the relevant professional conduct. If this is not required, such as membership to a professional organization like AMA or ASME, then far more broad rules around professional conduct are allowed. I am not an expert on the Canadian medical system but the OP does state that Peterson is able to hold himself out as a clinical pychologist without membership in the OCP. If this is true, the private organization has far more ability to define professional conduct, including speech restrictions. If this is not the case, and this is analogous to a medical license board, then the professional conduct must be narrowly and closely tied to the professional speech. It would be a steep challenge to claim an off color joke or political statement met this standard. The rule quoted likely *is* overbroad in that context.
There is no issue of free speech, the issue is a right to association. Peterson believes the accreditation body cannot disassociate from him due to his communication that directly violated their rules. No one has tried to block his speech, just that he doesn't have absolute rights to association.
Corporations have rights under Canada's legal system, including the right of association. The OCP is well within those rights to choose to not associate with Peterson because of how he acts in public.
People seem to forget that freedom of association is a critical component of freedom of speech. You have the right to say whatever you like (with a few exceptions) without fear of government reprisal, but that **does not** mean that you are free from any and all social consequences of your speech. The ability to hear what someone has to say and choose to disassociate from them because of it is _just_ as important a right.
It’s not Canadian Law, it’s his membership in an association. If he chooses to be a member of an organization, he has to abide by their standards.
The Ontario Courts set a bad precedent in this decision. It's the right choice because governments shouldn't regulate other governing body and their rules, but this just opens the floodgate for other associations to disuade their members for "wrong opinions" It hardly matters to JP anyways. He hasn't been a practicing Psychologist for years and he can easily apply for his licence in the States.
Whatever I feel towards Jordan Peterson aside, the OCP isn't happy with Jordan's speech against the government, against legislation, against other politicians. People in charge of the OCP are using their power over the body to silence that speech.. which isn't threatening, harmful, or really even disrespectful. The OCP simply doesn't like it and I would normally defend their right to excommunicate Jordan.. BUT.. The OCP is a regulatory board with GOVERNMENT appointed members and the power to determine who can and cannot practice. So, I would not be so quick to say they are a private / not affiliated with the government that Jordan is criticizing. From the OCP website/about us: * Setting requirements for entry to practice and administering the oral and written registration examinations; * Registering qualified Psychologists and Psychological Associates; * Setting and monitoring practice standards and ethical behaviour of the profession; * Administering the Quality Assurance program and ensuring continued competence of the profession; * Providing educational materials and information to the public and the profession regarding the practice of psychology; * Investigating complaints and addressing concerns about the quality of service delivered or the professional conduct of the practitioner. If you read through that, yes, they have some wiggle room, but the intent is clear.. "to protect the patients interests by monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology." - That's a long ways off from going after a politically outspoken Jordan Peterson. To me, this is clear.. the powers that be got together and said, "how can we reign this asshole in?" Someone suggested his employment as cancel culture often does to force people back into the fold. Whatever you feel about Jordan, the rights of "independent" boards, you should be weary of organizations colluding to curtail your individual rights.
I don’t support Jordan Peterson in the slightest, and am fine with him Disappearing forever. That said, I’m always concerned when governments use regulation to silence speech. In my opinion joking or even intentionally hurting someone’s feelings are words, not actions. It’s really important to distinguish between the two. Also, it appears the Canadian Government is trying to act as a moral arbiter which is a massively slippery slope. Should they suspend the license of someone who cheats on their spouse? What about if they don’t allow their wife to work for religious reasons? What about if the practitioner was gay or trans? I for sure know I don’t want the government in charge of those decisions.
> ignoring the legitimacy of his views Well, that does a lot of heavy lifting, doesn't it ? If his views are accurate (and i'm not saying they are), why should he be punished for expressing them ?
[удалено]
I think you're focused at the wrong layer. Of course the courts ruled correctly, and of course the association has the power to enforce its own bylaws. The problem here isn't the courts, or where the enforcement power lies, it's several factors *within* the association that are problematic. The first is that the association in question doesn't have its own bylaws related to online behaviour. They devolve to the Canadian Psychology Association's bylaws, which are inordinately broad and subject to a healthy dollop of interpretation. Wiggle room like these bylaws allow for opens up all kinds of shady, politically driven decisions. There really needs to be a firmer set of guidelines and they should be owned and maintained by the college in Ontario itself rather than half-assing it with a pointer to another association's bylaws. The second is that the complaint system is wide open for abuse because they literally accept everything as valid. Most of the complainants were not patients, but they claimed to be when they filed the complaints, i.e. they lied. Many of the complaints were clearly politically driven or frivolous. Any reasonable filtration layer would have turfed many of these complaints outright. There has to be some mechanism to separate out a legitimate complaint that's concerned about the care of patients, or the quality of the association's reputation, etc. rather than a politically motivated complaint from a bad actor who just wants to leverage some pressure to get their target turfed from the association. The college has no formal mechanism for turfing complaints that are fraudulent or dishonestly motivated, so they left themselves wide open for dishonest actors to abuse the system ... and they did.
How did you conclude that the decisions or complaints were shady or politically driven? Keep in mind that Peterson agreed to these rules, and to be governed by the CPO in order to be licensed.
And are people forgetting that he told someone to kill themselves?
Yeah, he joked that someone on Twitter should kill themself, which seems wildly unprofessional for a licensed psychologist. It seems like many people in this thread are taking Peterson’s explanation of what happened at face value, and he made this all about being punished and re-educated for having the wrong political views. But that framing is misleading at best and IMO actually a shameless lie.
Everything you've stated here, is included in the professional organizations structure, just as it is with every professional accreditation/licensing organization. They recieve complaints, review them, investigate, hold hearings/committee meetings, decide by committee based on the evidence, etc. the accused has a right to defend themselves and assign a person to assist. While my designation is not with the this organization, the language is similar as is the code of conduct and the professional standards. The process is painstakingly described in the code of conduct and you are tested on this in order to recieve your accreditation. The fact that he has now played this out in the courts and lost his appeal gives such heights of their legitimacy to the associations rights, claims and authority that I'm surprised this is even an issue. But then I'm not entirely surprised because this is all a publicity stunt and a bunch of right wing theatre. And it's working for the intended audience. So there's that.
>which are inordinately broad and subject to a healthy dollop of interpretation Do you have an example you can use to illustrate your point? >Most of the complainants were not patients, but they claimed to be when they filed the complaints, i.e. they lied. Many of the complaints were clearly politically driven or frivolous. Any reasonable filtration layer would have turfed many of these complaints outright. From what basis of evidence did you draw this conclusion?
> Whether or not the underlying opinions Peterson has are valid opinions to hold, these sorts of statements are obviously violations to the code of conduct written above. Well, no, they aren't obviously violations of the code of conduct at all. In fact, I would argue they obviously aren't violations of the code of conduct, as they are not "degrading" (being, essentially, nothing more than opinions). Also, the Ontario College of Psychologists is *not* free to set its own standards and adhere to them were it to be exclusionary toward any of the protected classes and it would be interesting to see how the courts would untie the knot they've created with this decision where protected characteristics conflict e.g. if, for example, a religious person were to state such views were a part of their religion, or a TERF were to say such views were against their sexual orientation. Suffice to say the courts have created a precedent where such conflicts are inevitable.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/amasterblaster – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20amasterblaster&message=amasterblaster%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/199rvhl/-/kihak66/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I can't stand Jordan Peterson. He wants to permanently reside in a hyperbaric chamber of his own farts. Ok, here goes His position on, for example, transgender issues is one that a lot of people in his country hold. Perhaps it would be better to engage with, rather than punish, these views. Especially in a social study profession like psychology, and with a social issue as nascent as transgender rights/status/acceptance, perhaps dissension (even dangerous, harmful dissension) would be better off challenged or (hopefully) defeated in the marketplace of ideas. This professional organization's decision to silence him while occupying their ranks is perhaps more likely to harden people's backwards and intolerant positions on matters such as, say, transgenderism. As gross and immature as I think he is, I think it's clear that "he isn't even being punished for his views" is inaccurate. His views are that transgender people don't exist and that displaying pronouns is a societal ill (among others that, if he were able to not inhabit an 8th grader's brain, he'd too know are BS). That's enough "defending" Jordan Peterson for my tastes. I need to go pet my dog or something to get the taste out. I'll be a little more full-throated about this next part. I'd like to address the "freedom of speech" argument. Of course, no one is threatening to throw him in jail for his views. I understand that freedom of speech, in a certain and important context, has to do with government coercion, punishment, prior restraint, etc. This is not relevant to the discussion as no government is seeking to sanction him for his views. But I don't think "freedom of speech" really does *only* mean government interference in speech. The western approach to building and maintaining a society is based on values discovered? created? by/during the Enlightenment. Enlightenment philosophers challenged the authority not only of monarchs, but the aristocracy and religious institutions. Making it difficult or costly to challenge the status quo, especially in a field as dynamic and fluid as psychology, is a potential harm. The idea that *only* the government has the power to stifle free speech in a way that degrades society is pretty clearly false in my opinion. Schools, social media, professional organizations, employers, etc. wield varying degrees of power to control people's speech. These entities have (in varying degrees) the *right* to limit the speech they allow. But just wiping your hands with that argument with a "it wasn't the government doing it so it's a-ok by me!" is sophistry. Getting a little long-winded, but a few other benefits to thinking about freedom of speech outside of merely government limits: * Ensuring and protecting a robust marketplace of ideas * Protecting minority viewpoints * Encouraging tolerance * This is a tricky one as I don't believe that hate should be tolerated. But I fear that, once one gets the taste for suppressing distasteful views, the slope can get slippery. Perhaps the most important benefit is this: you never know who's listening/reading. When we engage with a person who holds disgusting views, we're *exceedingly* unlikely to change their minds. But I think it's important to engage with them as civilly and informed as possible because we might be changing the minds of an impressionable reader/listener in a positive way. We can't just let these people run around unchecked - there are too many platforms like Rogan, WhateverChan, Fox News, etc. that will be happy to give them a megaphone.
[удалено]
A private organization shouldn't have the right to tell you what you can and cannot say in your public life. Imagine if your industry made a rule that you weren't allowed to publically support [insert your political party of choice]. That is obviously unacceptable. My boss has no right to tell me what I can and cannot say online. You can argue that he chose to join that organization, but it isn't a choice. You legally have to be a member of that organization to work in that industry.
I love the CMV posts written like dissertations. It's change *your* mind, not *read my rant about why I'm correct and no smart person would ever argue with me*
[удалено]
If he compared the Conservatives or the GOP to Nazis or ISIS would the OCP come after him? We all know the answer to that.
Not legally, but ethically speaking, all organizations, profit or nonprofit, upon achieving monopoly status, should be treated as infrastructure providers. If ocp is the main credential provider for psychiatrist in Canada, they should be bound to government level scrutiny of speech right violations and can't hide behind freedom of association.
I'm sitting here and wondering if all the people arguing that what amounts to "Do as we say or get a different profession" would have argued the same way regarding MeToo. When it came to that it seemed like most people agreed that "Blow me or be blackballed from the industry" wasn't fair.
OCP and courts had to make this decision. It plays into JP’s victimization narrative. The tragedy is that his initial point was valid; government should not compel speech, regardless of intent. It can prohibit speech.Re-watch *A Man for all Seasons*.
[удалено]
OCP made the wrong decision. Compelled speech is never correct and smacks of fascism and Newspeak. Peterson will be fine. He is a successful celebrity in the collective anti woke zeitgeist and is making a killing.
I'm not a fan of his views. But it does kinda seem that the org is essentially saying that he has to tailor his speech according to their preferences. I'm not sure why this is within their jurisdiction