Michael Hardner

"An instructive example is the case of Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327, where a member was disciplined for public statements expressing his negative views on homosexuality, which statements were found to be discriminatory and inconsistent with the standards of the teaching profession." This is all old hat. People want to rewrite the legal code because they're uncomfortable with transgenderism... it's anti-political. You need to accept institutional decisions, stop being so entitled people... it's anti-conservative. Thanks for the chat.

1. So you agree with the college ? 2. Except it isn't happening. 1. Says you. And him. The College gets to decide, otherwise how would standards be governed ? Here's another example. https://www.cpmb.ca/documents/Manitoba Psychologist, December 2011.pdf

Not really. I think you just want to make an exception for issues that are pet projects of yours My best guess is that you think that your opinion overrides that of others. I always defer to institutions, because they tend to work for us. Your bafflement over being chastised for public statements is itself baffling. Many organization reserve the right to boot you out for public statements. Here's another one: https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/public-guideline-on-the-code-of-ethics#-interpretation-of-the-code-of-ethics "This competence requirement of the Code extends to include an obligation to the public, the profession and one's peers, that opinions on engineering issues be expressed honestly and only in areas of one's competence. It applies equally to reporting or advising on professional matters and to issuing public statements. This requires honesty with one's self to present issues fairly, accurately, and with appropriate disclaimers, and to avoid personal, political, and other non-technical biases. The latter is particularly important for public statements or when involved in a non-technical forum." So try being an Engineer and going online to tell everyone the Holocaust was a hoax. See what happens.

1. Me and the college of Psychiatrists then ? 2. Hyperbole. Peterson was admonished for making irresponsible statements. That's completely understandable, given the unprofessional conduct he was engaged in. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-college-psychologists-tweets-1.6711524

I guess I did

It's a unique situation because 'open' debate on the topic includes the prospect of denying someone's self image with regards to gender. The psychiatric profession has even more responsibility to be careful around this issue. I'd be curious to know how many in the college support him. If Peterson peddled actual snake oil, should he be removed from the college then?

You start out with a bonkers proposition, and then try to lead to a conclusion in the real world? China's top heavy decision making is badly structured to deal with emergencies, as we saw. I would much rather have an open society where leadership is criticized, it is stronger because it's constantly tested and accountable.

1. I didn't say "racism" which is broad, I said " ... espousing theories of superiority based on ethnic/gender/creed and favouring systematic oppression of freedoms based on such theories ?"

Ok but why allow access to mass killing machines at such a time? Is a sick society able to diagnose itself?

1. 2. That sounds accurate. Maybe espousing theories of superiority based on ethnic/gender/creed and favouring systematic oppression of freedoms based on such theories ?

As per my comment, "not". The OP though seems to be challenged by the events of late.

1. I'm conservative so I support freedom, not government shutting people down and preventing marriage because they don't like them. The child molestation stuff is always trumped up. 2. Nevertheless I provided you with the link. Thatcher and Nixon also cared about climate change and the environment respectively. Enjoy your day.

1. Ok, problems with the jurisdiction but ok. 2. Start at 3:50. The man Elizabeth May called the greenest PM speaks. https://youtu.be/q_QpFQ1LGMs?si=5fjb9Dmct8bvdVJF

Maybe not but this stuff still happens. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/jacksonville-gunman-used-rifle-swastikas-214756582.html

1. What would you change about L&G rights ? Seems like there's no more to be done there ? 2. Also climate change and the ozone layer.

I already asked what specifically was objectionable. The one clear answer I had indicated that the themes could lead students to "raise questions". I disagree but even if I agree it's far from p*rn and I can't take any such arguments seriously. It's a non-starter.

1. 2. Yeah, I think it's allegorical. And meant to introduce the idea of self-acceptance and other-acceptance. Of course it's not just a story but it's not porn either. 3. No. Child beauty contests and makeup for kids are much closer but Republicans never mention those. You gave me your perspective, which is what I asked.

Lesbian Gay and Queer too ? And Climate ? Well Conservatives were all about climate in the 1980s so you kind of lost me there. I never understood when people include climate in wokism.

Well what else then ?

So, specifically wokeness is about support for transgenderism ? Or more than that ?

I asked you if the Democrats should be abolished and you said "without even a discussion"

1. 2. Right but only an adult would see that in the book - it's all allegory. 3. That book tells the kids to accept themselves for however they feel, which is letting them be themselves.

No. Liberals want economic and personal freedom, small 'l', not the abolishment of private property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

1. Your post is extremely articulate, however I have to think when the problems are this deep then the issue is deeper than one side. If the Republicans are indeed so defective why aren't the Democrats trouncing them in every election ? How is the US at such a stalemate in all of this ? I am not discounting your perspective on the Republican party at all, but I think the problem may be with the public - which is not the same as saying the problem is with the people.