With a # of past decisions available online with minutiae of interpretation and guidelines set out therein, I would think. It's there for anyone who wants to make sure they don't fuck up - like 99% of his colleagues do.
Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
Depends on the Free Speech. If you're a doctor or an attorney and you say "I love Hitler and I think all Jews should fry at Auschwitz!", your "free speech" is going to lose you your licence within a few weeks.
How about Lin Wood whose "free speech" involved bringing numerous unfounded lawsuits to overthrow the 2020 election (and not incidentally raise $$$$$ in contributions)? The judge sanctioned his ass and the GA bar pulled his licence.
People think free speech comes without consequences.
But surely the fact that you ignore people that you don't like doesn't mean that they lose the "right of free speech" to comment on your posts, Andy.
You're the big "free speech" dude on this board.
Can't wait to listen to Peterson's podcast with Victor Davis Hanson. He penned this horrifying short piece recently.
victorhanson.com
"The Coup We Never Knew
Did someone or something seize control of the United States?
What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased?
Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?
When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near criminal?
Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas—furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d—s”?
Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared?
How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees?
When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?
Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?
When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?
Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures?
What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?
When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?
Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan? Who planned it and why?
What happened to the once trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?
Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?
Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?
How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob of us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew."
The American Coup We Never Knew
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to an America we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.
victorhanson.com
"The Coup We Never Knew
Did someone or something seize control of the United States?
What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased?
Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?
When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near criminal?
Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas—furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d—s”?
Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared?
How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees?
When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?
Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?
When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?
Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures?
What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?
When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?
Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan? Who planned it and why?
What happened to the once trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?
Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?
Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?
How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob of us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew."
I fucking hate wading into these discussions but here I go...
I don't love or hate Jordan Peterson. He's a smart guy and his passionate defense of reason, freedom of speech and liberal and Enlightenment values are central to liberal democracy and anyone living in Canada should respect these values. If you don't, I believe you would do well to speak to a person who has lived in an authoritarian state or one of the former Soviet republics. His take on Communism and authoritarian psychology and his anti-authoritarianism is clear and well-reasoned. He's well read and well spoken, he's well educated and trained in his field, a graduate of Harvard and a professor at Harvard and U of T.
He didn't begin as a celebrity and attention hound but he has become one. I believe that he accidentally stumbled into his celebrity status mostly on the failed attempts of various social justice types going to social media and attempting to discredit him. Unfortunately for them, mostly because they are young adults who are driven by their doctrinaire ideas and lack experience and knowledge of life and the world, their views were easily discredited and he rose to prominence because he is articulate and knowledgeable. He rode them to celebrity...
I think he has become a celebrity and like many celebrities they sometimes speak out of turn... He's not an expert on climate change or nutrition and yet he trumpets his ideas loudly, this is most unfortunate and it detracts from his authority in the subjects that he does know.
As far as being a member of a professional college goes... Yes, he agreed to a code of conduct that was formulated by the members of that College and he explicitly agreed to those standards when he became a member of that college. There are a number of problems with professional practice standards and I won't go into depth into this now. How they are defined is based on a democratic process that includes members of the profession, lawyers, government officials and members of the public. These are meant to protect the public and prevent the profession from coming into disrepute. They are often vague statements that can be interpreted in many ways and applied in many more ways. One of the problems is that there is a lot of discretionary power in the hands of the people applying the standards and the standards are not clear and open to interpretation. They are also open to being abused... These organizations do not act in the manner of legal courts in where evidence has to be presented and there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, they act more like tribunals and there is a strong possibility that the decisions are based not on the facts but more so on the mandate of protecting the public and safe-guarding the reputation of the profession. So you can see the conundrum here, the individual rights of the practitioner are not central to this process, the group rights are and group rights are very abstract and open to the bias of the committee's interpretations. The standards are very sensitive to what can be perceived as "offensive behaviours" and the mandate of these college's is to minimize offense... When someone like Peterson comes around and argues that the truth is more important than you being offended... well, we are going to have a problem.
The CPO has the discretion to end an investigation if they find that the complaint is without merit or vexatious, they have to investigate every complaint but they can bring an end to it if they see that it doesn't have "legs". In this case they have decided to pursue these complaints and have rendered their decision to have Peterson do a remedial course in social media. He has the right to decline and they have the power to sanction him for his refusal.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Peterson disagreeing with the findings and demands of the CPO. He is a citizen and he has the right to question and refuse this ruling by this professional body. They may sanction him further or rescind his license, he may fight it or submit or resign.
I respect and appreciate that Peterson is willing to take on the CPO and press for a review of their powers and processes. These organizations are very susceptible to fads of thinking and personal bias. Community standards are very fluid and there will always be disagreement in these soft fields as to what is sanctioned and what is unsanctioned and for this reason this type of authority needs to be measured. I wish that these organizations had a more collaborative approach rather than a punitive approach but that is another topic. My hope is that he brings attention to these problems and that the government of Ontario review the College's power on these matters.
I hope that this is useful for the readers of this thread to understand this process.
Now, I'd rather go look at some reviews!!
I don't love or hate Jordan Peterson. He's a smart guy and his passionate defense of reason, freedom of speech and liberal and Enlightenment values are central to liberal democracy and anyone living in Canada should respect these values. If you don't, I believe you would do well to speak to a person who has lived in an authoritarian state or one of the former Soviet republics. His take on Communism and authoritarian psychology and his anti-authoritarianism is clear and well-reasoned. He's well read and well spoken, he's well educated and trained in his field, a graduate of Harvard and a professor at Harvard and U of T.
He didn't begin as a celebrity and attention hound but he has become one. I believe that he accidentally stumbled into his celebrity status mostly on the failed attempts of various social justice types going to social media and attempting to discredit him. Unfortunately for them, mostly because they are young adults who are driven by their doctrinaire ideas and lack experience and knowledge of life and the world, their views were easily discredited and he rose to prominence because he is articulate and knowledgeable. He rode them to celebrity...
I think he has become a celebrity and like many celebrities they sometimes speak out of turn... He's not an expert on climate change or nutrition and yet he trumpets his ideas loudly, this is most unfortunate and it detracts from his authority in the subjects that he does know.
As far as being a member of a professional college goes... Yes, he agreed to a code of conduct that was formulated by the members of that College and he explicitly agreed to those standards when he became a member of that college. There are a number of problems with professional practice standards and I won't go into depth into this now. How they are defined is based on a democratic process that includes members of the profession, lawyers, government officials and members of the public. These are meant to protect the public and prevent the profession from coming into disrepute. They are often vague statements that can be interpreted in many ways and applied in many more ways. One of the problems is that there is a lot of discretionary power in the hands of the people applying the standards and the standards are not clear and open to interpretation. They are also open to being abused... These organizations do not act in the manner of legal courts in where evidence has to be presented and there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, they act more like tribunals and there is a strong possibility that the decisions are based not on the facts but more so on the mandate of protecting the public and safe-guarding the reputation of the profession. So you can see the conundrum here, the individual rights of the practitioner are not central to this process, the group rights are and group rights are very abstract and open to the bias of the committee's interpretations. The standards are very sensitive to what can be perceived as "offensive behaviours" and the mandate of these college's is to minimize offense... When someone like Peterson comes around and argues that the truth is more important than you being offended... well, we are going to have a problem.
The CPO has the discretion to end an investigation if they find that the complaint is without merit or vexatious, they have to investigate every complaint but they can bring an end to it if they see that it doesn't have "legs". In this case they have decided to pursue these complaints and have rendered their decision to have Peterson do a remedial course in social media. He has the right to decline and they have the power to sanction him for his refusal.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Peterson disagreeing with the findings and demands of the CPO. He is a citizen and he has the right to question and refuse this ruling by this professional body. They may sanction him further or rescind his license, he may fight it or submit or resign.
I respect and appreciate that Peterson is willing to take on the CPO and press for a review of their powers and processes. These organizations are very susceptible to fads of thinking and personal bias. Community standards are very fluid and there will always be disagreement in these soft fields as to what is sanctioned and what is unsanctioned and for this reason this type of authority needs to be measured. I wish that these organizations had a more collaborative approach rather than a punitive approach but that is another topic. My hope is that he brings attention to these problems and that the government of Ontario review the College's power on these matters.
I hope that this is useful for the readers of this thread to understand this process.
Now, I'd rather go look at some reviews!!
Great piece. One offering of challenge though. I've never seen him claim to be an expert on nutrition. In fact I've seen him numerous times say that he feels uncomfortable discussing it because he's not a nutritionist. This is during interviews when they ask him about his carnivore diet. He always states that he has an autoimmune condition triggered by food allergies and this is what works for him. Now his daughter Mikhaila is a big proponent of what she's branded as the lion diet. She talks about it quite liberally on her podcast.
Isn't this Peterson parroting every silly rightie talking point out there in an effort to attract new customers and mint his brand?Can't wait to listen to Peterson's podcast with Victor Davis Hanson. He penned this horrifying short piece recently.
The American Coup We Never Knew
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to an America we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.
"The Coup We Never Knew
Did someone or something seize control of the United States?
What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased?
Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?
When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near criminal?
Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas—furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d—s”?
Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared?
How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees?
When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?
Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?
When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?
Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures?
What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?
When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?
Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan? Who planned it and why?
What happened to the once trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?
Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?
Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?
How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob of us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew."
This is why many people think he's a grifter. He essentially harvested every far right website on the net for their latest Anger Farming and said "If I adopt this horseshit, I might get a few more dollars in sales. So here I go!"
The guy's got even less integrity than your Top G buddy, Andrew Tate.
Well, neither you nor I have spent a lot of time listening to Jordy; but I suspect he says "God gets mad when you have sex and spend your precious, holy manly fluids on unclean, filthy whores. For god's sake, take a cold shower, read the bible and get yourself a wife to pray with."
Like I said, no speech is being "compelled". There are legal rules about hate speech already in the Criminal Code and the existing provisions of the Human Rights Code. And for sure as part of the CPO's rules of professional conduct.
Speech has consequences. Tell your boss to fuck off, you get fired. That shits all over "free speech" as well. But there are rules.
Attitudes are too abstract.
There is no community consensus in the U.S. and probably Canada on the pronoun debate. The Government can't pass a decree to make it so.
Let's stay on the topic of censorship. Anyone can make a case that JP or almost anyone offends people.
Last edited:
How do you know? Don't you have a study cited on Twitter that you can reference or something?
The fact is we aren't discussing JP here if cultural conservatives didn't embrace him.
I don't agree with everything he says but I can listen to almost anyone and not be offended. Many times even when I don't agree with someone I can see where they are coming from.
If you and others perceive yourselves a part of some crusade to change the world, this type of pragmatism is an obstinate hurdle that needs to be overcome.
What you consider "far right" was a centrist view 15 years ago. You've become the extremist. JP interviewing the remaining level headed intelligentsia is good for everyone.
You can knock Tate for duping losers out of their money via webcam, but if he didn't do it someone else would. "A fool and his money are soon parted."
He did it working with women that were happy to do it, earned an income doing it, and were protected while doing it. Women do the same without scaling it like Tate did every day. Half the SPs on this board work their clients over all the time. They finesses without your awareness.
Tate could only do what he did successfully by studying women and how they extract from men.
I look forward to Tate's release. He's hated because he doesn't make excuses for people's failures, he talks openly about female nature (in other words he tells the truth, which negates everything feminist ideology teaches), he's financially successful, and he's arrogant.
The smear campaign is boring at this point.
Last edited:
The topic isn't censorship, its Peterson's membership as a psychologist.
He can keep saying what he wants, just not as a psychologist.
Stay on topic.
Stay on topic, this isn't about left wingers and censorship.
This is about psychologists.
Well, no. And anyway, my point was that he hoovered up every rightie pitch without adding any input of his own and just threw it out as a marketing tool. I don't think JP missed a single one and a bright guy like him would have added some of his own comments or disagreed with a few of the points, if this was anything but a grift.
Hey, everyone loves a pimp, right? Especially when he orders the girls around and tells them they can't go out of the fuckhouse without "security" making sure they don't get on a bus, phone a relative or talk to a cop.
s/
If all he did was regurgitate "rightie pitch", we wouldn't be talking about him. He'd just be another rightie like the ones you claim he is parroting and wouldn't have made any notable impression.
Fact is, he made careful yet accessible common sense arguments on every platform imaginable directly in front of those that wanted to dismiss him and portray him as some type of hateful fool.
Unsubstantiated allegations from some American chick who hates the fact that he was making lots of money, surrounded by beautiful women, and living every Western man's dream. The ultimate nightmare of the strong independent western feminist (aka man haters, who ironically want to be the thing they hate).
It is about censorship... not in the legal/federal sense of hate speech etc. but censorship by a professional college that have vague professional conduct standards and don't have to base their rulings on evidence... How do you prove that someone was harmed by an offensive statement or a strong opinion?
There is so much more room for abuse without the checks of a legal system that requires a standard of evidence and due legal process.
I think that this is a much worse form of censorship.
Sorry I couldn't help chuckle thinking this is a unique way to see Godwin's Law in action.
I kind of shrugged because I don't think Peterson's opinions are that extreme or outside the norm. They certainly don't warrant Hitler and Holocaust analogies.
WTF is a discussion on a professional association disciplining someone for espousing their opinions?
You are giving too much credence to the College of Psychologists of Ontario decision simply because they are going after someone you don't like.
This is either an attempt at illegal censorship or a perfectly permissible disciplinary action taken against a member for his words. mandrill basically posted that free "speech has consequences". So therefore we are talking about freedom of speech and the question is very simple. Is the CPO within their governing authority over the psychology profession legally able to discipline Peterson for some of his words and opinions.
We'll see if this goes anywhere in Court.
Last edited:
