Is it actually under their code of conduct. Or do a chosen few get to make up the rules when and as they see fit.
First off, there is no Code of Conduct and you've been referring to the wrong thing this whole time because, despite being told you would foolish if you didn't, you still haven't read the Court's decision. You're referring to the
STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (2017). Which is called "the Standard" in the Court's decision. "The Code" is actually
Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. The Standard is barely referenced in both the decision of the CPO and the decision by the Court. It's the Code that the college is saying Peterson violated, and the Standard merely says the Code applies.
Members must conduct themselves so that their activities and/or those conducted under their direction comply with those statutes and regulations that applyto the provision of psychological services.
I'm not sure what you think you've stumbled on here. Are you trying to say the Standard (and also the Code) only apply when providing psychological services? Because your highlighting seems to imply that, but read more closely and that's not at all what that section says. It says the statutes and regulations that are relevant are those that deal with the provision of psychological services, not that members are only subject to them when providing psychological services. In other words, members don't have to follow the Code of Ethics for Professional Engineers, because that isn't related to the application of psychological services.
And their claim of “hurting” clients.
1) not clients. Not sure why people gloss over this… Reality check. Argument should end right here….Their own code, in black and white, say…..when his conduct falls under their domain. Is it simply because you don’t like him?
But again, that's not the Code, that's the Standard, and it does apply. Check the APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS in the Standard, and you'll see this:
Public Statements: statements in any medium that include, but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, grant and credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae, comments for use in media including print and electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings and contained in the public record, lectures and public presentations, and published materials.
It applies to his public statements. That's why thats in "APPLICABILITY". This is also on the Court's decision that clearly you still refuse to read. See lines 41, 54 and 55 specifically in the Court's decision.
2) who made them god. That they can say what we, the public, find is acceptable to hear, is good for our health, however you want to word it.
First off, they aren't saying you aren't allowed to hear anything. They're saying a member of their association, while identifying themselves as a member of their association and using the authority as a member of their association, can't say certain things. They didn't send notice to Joe Rogan, who participated in one of the incidents that is cited in the decision, that he can't say whatever he wants. It regulates members of the College, not members of the public. And if Peterson refuses to take their training and loses his license, the only thing that they will have authority over him saying is that he will no longer be allowed to claim to be a member of their College, and he'll be free to say anything else he likes.
As to who made them "God", their authority to regulate psychologists literally comes from the laws that pertain to the provision of psychological services. There is a statutory mandate that the College regulates the progression. Line 5 in the decision you still refuse to read no matter how many times you look silly. From the Standard (not the Code) that you keep citing, you are referred to the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 38. It's worth noting that in 2021, Ontario passed the Psychology and Applied Behaviour Analysis Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 27, Sched. 4 and repealed the Psychology Act, 1991, but the 2021 act doesn't come in force and therefore the 1991 act is not repealed not until July 1, 2024. Either way, both mandate that the College oversea the professional conduct of its members.
Funny, as a member of the public I don’t recall giving them authority over me. Do you?
I don't. But then they aren't exercising authority over you. They're exercising authority over a member of their College as they are required to do by law and as Jordan Peterson agreed to let them do when he joined the College and further, I might add, that he agreed they have the authority to do in court case he just had which is the topic of this thread. All of which is explained in the decision if you would just read it. It's 18 pages. Unless you suck at reading, it's like 5 minutes. It would have taken you less time to read it than it has taken for you to make all these ridiculous posts making arguments that are all addressed and answered in said decision.
Your refusal to just read the damned thing is astonishing. Do you think reading a numbered listing of the facts, followed by a numbered listing of the arguments, followed by a numbered step-by-step analysis and finally a numbered conclusion is somehow beneath you? Why do you think you can offer intelligent opinion or insight into a thing that you have not read? It's ludicrous. Just read it.
if you say so. You keep referencing the wrong document and trying to debunk a court ruling that you haven't even read, and you think a professional body censuring it's members of somehow them controlling you, but I'm the one who looks stupid? 
<----- raised eyebrows. 
