Jordan Peterson crushed like an insolent fly by panel of judges

[Not getting younger]

What’s your motivation child?
Seriously, you want to argue over that?

One thing I will say. My post are often intentionally “vague” because getting people to think….better than telling them what to think? Let’s see if you can figure that out.

So what’s your motivation. I know, but do you?

 

[Frankfooter]

JP's license is pretty much useless at this point.
1. Who would ever go see him.
2. He can make way more money doing his schtick.

He will fight to keep his license, only because him keeps him in the news.

The college is right to boot out a guy who calls the female orgasm a 'myth', made fun of fat people and suggested someone kill themselves.
Its like arguing that architects shouldn't have the power to kick someone out of their association for trying to build a bridge out of marshmallows.

He should just stick to being a profession incel troll.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611405636931141632

 

[Dutch Oven]

Um, Jordan brought the case to the courts, what did you expect them to do? Now he's talking about an appeal, hopefully, the appellate court tells him to go jerk off in a circle jerk with his sheep and stop wasting the court's time.

Peterson went to court to argue that the College overstepped its mandate by violating his Charter rights. I expect the Dvisional Court to take that claim VERY seriously, and uphold the claim if made out. I don't expect the Divisional Court to show ANY deference to an administrative body on matters of constitutional law, in line with precedent on judicial review.

The Divisional Court gets this wrong MANY times. That's why an appeal to the Court of Appeal is available. Hopefully, a good panel of the CA will hear the case and get it right on appeal, but my faith in courts is not what it once was.

However, to get back to the point of my post in response to yours, it is not the function of ANY court to "slap" political figures you don't like. They wouldn't ever say so, so why would you? If you think that is their function, you have the attitude of a tyrant.

 

[Soccersweeper]

Most likely he wins on appeal.

 

[richaceg]

"The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," the decision written by Justice Paul Schabas reads, in part.

So the court doesn't even acknowledge what JP was doing is wrong...more like..."take it easy with your approach"....LoL So what are the lefties crying about?

 

[Dutch Oven]

He can say whatever the fuck he wants. He just can't continue as a member of his profession.

If an attorney says "that judge can suck my dick because she's a dumb whore!", you think he gets to continue to be a lawyer?!

You are bad at analogies. Hopefully, the analogies you use in your professional life are more on point.

The reason lawyers can't insult and and swear at judges is because lawyers have a professional duty to uphold the integrity of the entire justice system - even when it isn't working correctly. In order for people to keep hiring lawyers, above all, the justice system must continue, or there will be no lawyering to be done. That's what that prohibition is about - protecting the institution that is the raison d'etre of the legal profession. In fact, you're a very good boy here on TERB, constantly defending the work of the justice system, even when it amounts to defending the indefensible.

Peterson was not brought up on discipline because he made statements attacking the integrity/reliability of his own profession. Instead, his professional body decided that no client should be aware of a practicing psychologist's view on certain social/political subjects - not that psychologists couldn't hold such views, but rather that no client should be made aware of them. There is NO comparison between that concept and the concept of protecting the idea that the work done by the profession of psychologist is reliable and helpful work.

Now, I might take issue with whether psychologists do useful/reliable work, especially given the specious reasoning of their professional body, but that's not what Peterson did.

 

[mandrill]

The Divisional Court blows it. On to the Court of Appeal. Such a country we live in. Canadians are proud to claim that we are a democratic country where citizens enjoy rights and freedoms, yet people like you, and MANY like you, cheer every effort to restrict those fundamental freedoms. Inexplicable.

Jordan will grift crowd funding to try and get up to the SCC and milk it for clicks while pretending to be a "victim of fascist oppression" because the College has the effrontery to try and enforce the same standards against him that every other shrink in Canada has to live by.

It's not a lawsuit. It's basically a huge PR opportunity for him.

 

[mandrill]

"The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," the decision written by Justice Paul Schabas reads, in part.

So the court doesn't even acknowledge what JP was doing is wrong...more like..."take it easy with your approach"....LoL So what are the lefties crying about?

You don't seem to be doing too well in following what the court wrote.

 

[mandrill]

You are bad at analogies. Hopefully, the analogies you use in your professional life are more on point.

The reason lawyers can't insult and and swear at judges is because lawyers have a prefessional duty to uphold the integrity of the entire justice system - even when it isn't working correctly. In order for people to keep hiring lawyers, above all the justice system must continue, or there will be no lawyering to be done. That's what that prohibition is about - protecting the institution that is the raison d'etre of the legal profession. In fact, you're a very good boy here on TERB, constantly defending the work of the justice system, even when it amounts to defending the indefensible.

Peterson was not brought up on discipline because he made statements attacking the integrity/reliability of his own profession. Instead, his professional body decided that no client should be aware of a practicing psychologist's view on certain social/political subjects - not that psychologists couldn't hold such views, but rather that no client should be made aware of them. There is NO comparison between that concept and the concept of protecting the idea that the work done by the profession of psychologist is reliable and helpful work.

Now, I might take issue with whether psychologists do useful/reliable work, especially given the specious reasoning of their professional body, but that's not what Peterson did.

No. Please read the decision.

 

[mandrill]

The decision of the court actually says the opposite - that they will NOT interfere in a decision within the mandate of the profession's regulatory body.

Yus. You understood that. The College's response would have to have been blatantly unreasonable for the court to intervene and dig around in the College's back yard.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Yus. You understood that. The College's response would have to have been blatantly unreasonable for the court to intervene and dig around in the College's back yard.

That's not the law of judicial review when there is a question requiring interpretation of the constitution (as there was in this case), or of any other law of general application.

 

[Dutch Oven]

No. Please read the decision.

Yes, my comments are accurate.

 

[Not getting younger]

Quoting takes too long. More vagueness

Mandrill, Peterson hasn’t practiced since I think 2017…….in part supports some of your position. At the same time that fact, undermines the CBOs…..

The court also ruled, and I quote for those of you who haven’t read it carefully. How ironic.

The risks of harm identified by the ICRC included “undermining public trust in the profession of psychology”

/point at riots, anarchy, cops being executed, BLM, (the judiciary) distrust of Wall Street, (financial system)…government…the three pillars of the “institution”..

and charter rights in this case. Incase people aren’t paying attention. There’s a lot of people, that don’t agree with the ruling.

“food for thought”.

And for what it’s worth. also ironic the public trust, seems to be a thing here with this “topic”. Yet scoffed at when mentioned previously..

 

[Dutch Oven]

Jordan will grift crowd funding to try and get up to the SCC and milk it for clicks while pretending to be a "victim of fascist oppression" because the College has the effrontery to try and enforce the same standards against him that every other shrink in Canada has to live by.

It's not a lawsuit. It's basically a huge PR opportunity for him.

Surely you can't just ignore the points of political activists because there is some collateral gain to their activity. I'm sure MLK benefitted from the profile that his poltical activism brought. We have to focus on the points being made, not the bank accounts of those making them.

And no, the ruling of the College is, without question, "the Jordan Peterson rule". There is no evidence that other psychologists had tried to develop his level of presence on social media to discuss social and political issues and had been shut down by the College and sent off to re-education camp.

Aren't you even the least bit concerned that the LSO might march lawyers with unpopular views off to re-education camp? Lawyers that hang around pooner boards, for instance? I recall a few years ago that there were LSO benchers that thought they could compel speech contrary to the Charter (regarding support for EDI initiatives). At least the legal profession had the sense to turf those benchers and abandon the proposal. Who is to say a similar cadre couldn't get themselves back in power in your own profession?

 

[DinkleMouse]

/raises eyebrow
How ironic given your first post, my like/reply.

So what’s your motivation. I know, do you?

So not interested in intelligent, good-faith discussion. Got it. See ya.

 

[Not getting younger]

Right, says the guy that didn’t pause to read 5 words……before ting off. Still hasn’t owned that. You have as much credibility as Dalton McGuinty.

 

[Frankfooter]

There’s a lot of people, that don’t agree with the ruling.

There's a lot of people who are Nazis these days, do we need to care what they think?
Peterson and Tate are the present day leaders of the incel movement.
One is going to prison in Romania the other shouldn't be able to practice as a psychologist.

 

[Not getting younger]

Those therapists will not reveal their personal opinions. Just because someone has despicable opinions does not mean they would be unprofessional, especially if they have nothing to gain from it, unlike Jordan who makes millions by stirring up outrage.

Could we say Dr Martin Luther King was any different? His opinions were certainly inflammatory and unpopular.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Those therapists will not reveal their personal opinions. Just because someone has despicable opinions does not mean they would be unprofessional, especially if they have nothing to gain from it, unlike Jordan who makes millions by stirring up outrage.

Review the logical dissonance in your post. What difference does it make to a patient whether their therapist's views have made them wealthy or not? The answer is - none. And if someone's views, however dispicable, would not give rise to any inference about whether they would act professionally, then what on earth was the College doing trying to regulate Peterson's speech?

 

[richaceg]

You don't seem to be doing too well in following what the court wrote.

You're the one putting it out there....thinking this is such a big deal for JP. It isn't. Of course he wouldn't want his license revoked...that's a privilege to have...he's going to take the social media training why not? would that change his views? his beliefs? no. it will change his approach... JP was right and people are starting to make sense...