suds

All I can do is offer my opinion. In general, in a free liberal democracy, government (or the state) should not have the power to coerce any of its citizens to do something against their will unless they are breaking known laws. As an arm of government, regulating bodies that get their mandate by government decree, should be held to those same standards. It's why some legal experts have questioned "whether the college even has the legal jurisdiction to develop a code of ethics in the first place that prohibit the free expression of its members, unrelated to their clinical psychological practice, particularly if that free expression breached no laws — that is, wasn’t criminal nor defamatory." Did Peterson break any laws? If he did then why wasn't he charged? The regulator's duty is to serve the best interests of the public and it appears somehow felt that Peterson's speech was harmful to the public good. Is that good enough or is it government overreach? I would say the latter in this particular case.

The way I understand it is that a 'professional organization' such as the 'Ontario Psychology Association' is completely voluntary and promotes the interests of their profession. On the other hand the 'College of Psychologists of Ontario' is the regulating body that does the regulating and licensing and is the only body that can issue licenses or take them away. The regulating body is different from the professional association as it serves the best interests of the public (and not the members), and gets its mandate by government decree and as such serves to act as an arm of government. I would have to assume that most other professional organizations and regulating bodies in Canada work the same way. Note that Peterson ran afoul with the College of Psychologists of Ontario and not the Ontario Psychology Association.

Peterson asked the court to overturn the college's decision requiring him to take remedial training. Some suggest the court acted appropriately for what was brought before it. Still others suggest what Peterson should have put before the court is "whether the college even has the legal jurisdiction to develop a code of ethics in the first place that prohibit the free expression of its members, unrelated to their clinical psychological practice, particularly if that free expression breached no laws — that is, wasn’t criminal nor defamatory." Peterson may have had good reasons for going about it the way he did, but certainly questioning the legal jurisdiction (of the college) to develop such a code of ethics in the first place would have gotten a lot closer to the heart of the matter.

I would like to think each member would contribute accordingly to get the job done. Otherwise, what's the point? I can't think of one member who would sit on the sidelines. The people wouldn't allow it.

After reading up on the actual court case I've got myself looking at this a little differently. It seems that the college had no issue about Peterson's opinions but only in the demeaning, insulting, sarcastic manner in the way he expressed them (sort of like around here). Maybe the college should have referred to it as 'sensitivity training' which might have made more sense. So the court agrees and says something like 'ok, we'll buy that, so carry on'. BUT.... we first have to do something about the Charter Section 2.b and this is what I propose... 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms 2.b Freedom of thought, opinion, blah blah blah, but you gotta be nice about it, or else! Does that work for anybody?

I sort of like 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. If I were a belligerent I wouldn't want to mess around with NATO or any Nato member. Getting out of NATO is insanity.

latest from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.... TORONTO — Noa Mendelsoh Aviv, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, made the following statement: The CCLA does not endorse the views of Dr. Peterson – but in court we argued professional regulatory bodies should not be in the business of policing speech that is not clearly connected to professional practice. Freedom of expression is a right that no individual gives up just because they join a regulated profession. About the Canadian Civil Liberties Association The CCLA is an independent, non-profit organization with supporters from across the country. Founded in 1964, the CCLA is a national human rights organization committed to defending the rights, dignity, safety, and freedoms of all people in Canada.

"Just an opinion". That's all that was necessary. Thank you! I happen to agree with a few other posts that this is exactly the type of thing that could be weaponized against political speech that some don't agree with. All it would take is a few complaints about what a college member posted on social media and that person's life is turned upside down. Try and fight it and you have to remortgage the home. My understanding is that the 'Protection of Public Participation Act of Ontario' doesn't cover this type of thing so there's little if any possible recourse except getting lawyers involved and taking it to the courts as Peterson did. Or caving in. But of course Peterson has deep pockets. Something has to be remedied. Maybe if government directed them to make things clearer it might help. Free speech is under attack in so many ways and we live in a new age of self censorship. Anyone who believes in free speech should be alarmed (and cautious).

I take it this is opinion? Anything to back your assertion up with? It might be helpful.

So Peterson has to abide by 'the Code'? Consider this then .... The College of Psychologists of Ontario received its mandate to regulate by government decree. As such, should not the College and it's Code have to abide by the Charter also? Putting it another way, if the college wants to write their own little bible, it shouldn't be allowed to deviate too far from the Big Bible. Specifically (in Peterson's case) when it comes to free expression on social media when the topics discussed have nothing to do with the profession the College is regulating. Or perhaps if Peterson stopped identifying himself as a clinical psychologist, would that be enough to placate the college? I get it. There's not a thing you like about Peterson. A lot of others feel the same way, but they support him because there are far bigger issues at stake.

You can always appeal. But if the supreme court doesn't agree with you, then yeah.... you're basically screwed. You could always write letters to your elected officials, or get a sign and protest (but no swastika's). Get more politically active. Politicians and other elected officials tend to not like being publicly embarrassed so maybe protesting is your best bet. And of course we always have the vote.

I get the same feeling at times. But constitutions belong to the people. If you object to the way things are going then stand and be heard.

The idea of perfect constitution doesn't exist. Or if one did, why did the US have to add so many amendments? Supreme courts aren't perfect either. Or why did the US supreme court have to overrule previous supreme court rulings over 300 times? Nothing is ever set in stone (or should be). Not even the constitution.

I can't disagree. But what happens when rights conflict as in a great many cases the courts have to render a decision on? If rights were absolute a decision would be next to impossible. So they try and do a balancing act.

I find the exact opposite. Section 1 recognizes the idea that no rights are absolute. Section 33 is the abomination. The Charter certainly isn't perfect. But I see it this way... if the US had to rewrite it's constitution (the way the country is so polarized today), it would likely end up with something similar or it would never happen.

Yeah I get it. Be neutral, sit on the fence, become the world's arbiter..... and be respected for it. That might work and it might backfire. As I've said before, with foreign affairs (as with life) you have to pick a side. Because if you don't and the shit hits the fan in your own backyard... don't automatically expect anyone to bail you out.

There's a difference between being suspended for a month (as with Kempling) and being told to undergo social media training. Peterson claims he pays for this 'training' out of pocket for as long as it takes, until those administering the training are convinced he has been re-educated. This to me sounds a bit orwellian. Peterson also claims he is going to tape the proceedings and make them public. If not allowed to tape, he will make notes or do it by memory. If the goal is to make an example of Peterson, I figure they picked the wrong guy and instead may be creating a martyr. And according to Orwell... martyrs have always had the capability of destroying the things that led them to martyrdom. So stay tuned.... it ain't over yet.

So who exactly are these people who are going to re-educate Jordan Peterson? What are their qualifications? And if there's no intention of restricting Peterson's freedom of expression..... then why even bother??

Sounds more like a fiscal conservative to me. It takes one to know one.

Can't say I disagree with anything you've posted but you're missing the whole point. It's been 30 years since the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and 25 years since Kyoto. Do you see any improvement on total world GHG emissions? Do you see any signs of where it might improve in the near future with world population set to increase by 2.3 billion people over the next 60 years? I don't. Any chart I've seen shows world GHG emissions going up and up and up and up. This is a global problem and not a domestic problem, and realistically if we are to achieve set goals (while maintaining acceptable living standards) we have to embrace nuclear and drastically limit or reduce population growth as a main part of any solution. That's my whole point. And you're absolutely right about us (and the US as well) exporting all our dirty manufacturing jobs to places like China with low environmental standards. It does nothing for our economy and does nothing for reducing GHG emissions on a global scale. But it makes politicians look good, as if we're actually accomplishing something.

The UN's population division estimates world population will peak around 10.4 billion in 2086 which would be an increase of 2.3 billion from today's figure. Estimates from other sources claim population will peak between 2060-2070. Whatever, it might be wise to assume the worst case scenario of 2.3 billion more bodies to accommodate in 2086 if the increase in world population goes unchecked. What is a realistic number for world population in terms of dealing with climate change and resources while maintaining acceptable (and equitable) living standards for all? You tell me. If things aren't fair and equitable now, they're only going to get worse.

According to the chart, China's total GHG emissions have quadrupled since 1990, while the International Energy Agency estimates that China's GHG emissions/capita have tripled over the same time period. India's emissions/capita have doubled. Consider also that the vast majority of much smaller developing nations have substantially increased GHG emissions (per capita) in their desire to provide a more affluent western lifestyle for its citizens. Latest figures provided by the IEA show that total world GHG emissions increased by 6%. The factors affecting climate change don't care about GHG emissions/capita, but only TOTAL world GHG emissions. Any realistic (and fair) approach in reducing world GHG emisions would result in many countries taking quite a hit in living standards while others increased theirs. Or... do something about reducing world population on a drastic scale. No matter how you look at it, with the technology we have today any increase in world population will have a negative affect on climate change and on everyone's living standards. So it becomes a tradeoff. So why isn't anyone (except for the odd few) not taking reducing world population seriously?

I agree. Stalin brought in American industrialists to plan and run his factories during the USSR's period of industrialization. Does that make Stalin a capitalist? Of course not. So what are Hitler and Mussolini supposed to do? Shoot the capitalists running their factories and then have nobody left to run them? Again, of course not. I see no evidence of Mussolini or Hitler being capitalists. It just made perfect sense to keep the capitalists running things (and keeping them happy) while exercising almost total control over them. Whatever works. To put it another way..... what's the difference between allowing capitalists to run things and take their profits, or paying people appointed by the state to run things and pay them generous bonuses and better living conditions? Sure Hitler executed communists, he also executed liberals or anyone else who stood in his way to total power. He simply got rid of all opposition.

I would really like to know what impartialobserver found so funny about my post? Or am I just wasting my time asking?

Just remember that if you don't vote democrat then you are despised by democrats. Or perhaps even as far as being labelled 'enemies of the state'. And it makes not a shred of difference what race you are or what gender you identify with. People should be judged as individuals and not identity groups. They should also be judged by the content of their character and not by who they vote for. It's too bad that democrats who act so superior at times can't get these simple truths through their sanctimonious heads.