Another blow for freedom of speech in Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yup he is.  The cultural revolutionary mob is forcing re-education on Peterson, though he’s twice as smart as the losers who came up with a “social media sensitivity” course....

 

That's the irony of this situation.   To retain professional membership, Peterson is being compelled by the court to complete mandated "training" for views that have no more righteous sanction than Peterson's.

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are religious institutions allowed to dictate the conduct of the people working for it and the opinions they make public? 

So are you saying that the Psychological Association of Ontario is like a religious institution and therefore must not speak anything contrary to their belief?   If so, I would tend to agree with you.  The association is acting like a top-down control religious institution or more like a cult.

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order (msn.com)

"

TORONTO — An Ontario court has ruled against controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson, upholding a regulatory body's order that he undergo social media training.

Last November, Peterson, who is also an author and media commentator, was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements.

That followed numerous complaints to the governing body of Ontario psychologists, of which Peterson is a member, regarding his online commentary directed at politicians, a plus-sized model and transgender actor Elliot Page, among other issues.

The college's complaints committee concluded his controversial public statements could amount to professional misconduct and ordered the social media coaching program – failure to comply could mean the loss of his licence to practice psychology in the province.

Peterson filed for a judicial review, arguing his political commentary is not under the college's purview.

The Ontario Divisional Court has dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.

Peterson, a retired University of Toronto psychology professor, rose to prominence through his polarizing YouTube videos critiquing liberal culture and his successful self-help book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos."

Apparently because he is a retired psychology professor, the court ruled his comments on social media falls under the authority of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.  Bizarre!  I guess his mistake is his comments critique and expose the woke and progressive liberals.  He has become too influential and too many social media followers as well.  The liberal elite will not allow this in Canada.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean  Freedom from consequences. You absolutely have freedom of speech to publicly call your boss a dumb ugly c-nt and say that you hope their kids die in a fire. Your Freedom of speech doesn’t prevent your boss from holding you accountable for that. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I see the Jehovah's Witnesses standing on street corners.  I could call into question their beliefs...

If you were a Jehovah's Witness they might kick you out.

An assault on your freedom of speech?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's the irony of this situation.   To retain professional membership, Peterson is being compelled by the court to complete mandated "training" for views that have no more righteous sanction than Peterson's.

Yeah, I remember when I was in the army, they made me get up in the morning.

Bastards!  What about my rights!!!

[myata]

Let's just make sure we are talking about same thing.

1. You post some views in your own, private social media space

2. The post is legal, protected by the freedom of speech and not libelous, etc

3. Some woke maron reads it and feels offended by it. It's spread by maron media and gets resonance etc.

4. You are dragged before a professional tribunal that can dictate your behavior (any part of it that it deems relevant).

5. You complain to the court" but it laughs and claps its hands.

Now what does it look like? A great democracy? Or China North? Please.

[bush_cheney2004]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But.... there are indeed limits as to what can be done about online postings.. firing people and so on.  It's contentious.

 

Indeed....do views expressed on social media platforms invite greater scrutiny and professional ramifications than for more traditional media, like print or film ?   Is that the true nature of Peterson's transgression and punishment ...being a popular force online instead of with a book ?

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I remember when I was in the army, they made me get up in the morning.

Bastards!  What about my rights!!!

 

Read the contract....reduced rights.   Peterson did not join the army, but there is an army of people going after him because of his views and popularity.

[blackbird]

Beware of psychology in general.   The Freudian cult has been exposed and now the Jung cult.   What is left for psychologists to hang onto?

"Ivan Tyrrell: In recent decades a tremendous amount of good work has been done exploring the damage Freudian beliefs did to psychotherapy, recently most notably by Richard Webster in Why Freud was Wrong, so I am most intrigued about your work on the Jung cult. Freud's one great service to the modern world was to publicise the ancient idea that we are driven much of the time by unconscious forces of which we are little aware. But in almost all other respects the crazy ideas he manufactured and promoted did great harm – and still are doing. Can the same be said for Jung?

Richard Noll: I think so. And my book, The Jung Cult, documents why."

The mysterious Jung: his cult, the lies he told, and the occult | www.hgi.org.uk

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

Peterson is free to have the speech he wants. He's not being jailed or even fined. 

Having his professional credentials revoked would be an ENORMOUS fine.  And speaking your mind outside of your job or career shouldn't be subject to discipline inside your job or career.

If you can't realize why that's an issue - then perhaps we should start banning any athlete who takes a knee (or any other controversial left wing position) from participating in sports.  Any teacher that speaks out on social issues out of school curriculum should be fired.  Are you ok with that?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Nexii said:

Part of being associated with a professional body is acting professional towards the public. Be it doctors, accountants, engineers, psychologists. You get to reap the benefits by a higher salary at the cost of adhering to their standards. This isn't difficult to understand. 

 

There's nothing unprofessional about what jorden says - they just don't like it.

If a doctor came out and said that the ndp is a great party - that's a political statement. Should they have their license pulled?

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed....do views expressed on social media platforms invite greater scrutiny and professional ramifications than for more traditional media, like print or film ?   Is that the true nature of Peterson's transgression and punishment ...being a popular force online instead of with a book ?

I would say that the nature of social media, that it allows people to eavesdrop on a conversation between a small group of friends from far field, is something we haven't adjusted to socially yet.

 

For example there was a case of a woman fired in England for expressing anti-transgender views online, ostensibly, that was reversed.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would say that the nature of social media, that it allows people to eavesdrop on a conversation between a small group of friends from far field, is something we haven't adjusted to socially yet.

 

For example there was a case of a woman fired in England for expressing anti-transgender views online, ostensibly, that was reversed.

What were the views?  A man is not a woman just because he says he is should not get someone fired.  All trans people should be chopped up and fed to rabid dogs might.  Both views should be allowed to be held by the individual.

It's not denying freedom of speech when someone is cancelled, or made to comply with certain rules.  It might well be extremely dumb.  I bet about half the cases we hear of are considered dumb by everyone who hears of them.  It just might not always be the same half.

Edited August 23, 2023 by bcsapper

[myata]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And speaking your mind outside of your job or career shouldn't be subject to discipline inside your job or career.

Yes I think this issue relates directly to fundamental constitutional freedoms, though Canadian courts" would hardly see it this way. Indeed, can someone force you to abandon fundamental right as a condition of employment without reasonable and justifiable cause(s); sure you may not be allowed to speak publicly about commercial or technology secrets; in the army your rights can be limited in an essential way. But just wave it away arbitrarily, all of it and for the perpetuity?

It can be interesting to see how this is dealt with in real democracies. You sign a contract that limits your rights like freedom of movement or speech without reasonable grounds. A real democratic court in my understanding should tear it apart regardless of whether you sign it or not.

No, it is not reasonable for some association to dictate you on your private posts. A reasonable citizen in this century is expected to understand the difference between a private opinion and a professional one. Pretending that a private individual opinion may stain the image of association is an unreasonable, unbelievable stretch; a just and competent court should see through it. It looks like abuse of power by "associations" that are happily nodded away by facade courts that may not have a clue nor care about these fundamental issues. Again, would be interesting to know how it works in the States and other democratic countries.

Edited August 23, 2023 by myata

[Nexii]

24 minutes ago, myata said:

Yes I think this issue relates directly to fundamental constitutional freedoms, though Canadian courts" would hardly see it this way. Indeed, can someone force you to abandon fundamental right as a condition of employment without reasonable and justifiable cause(s); sure you may not be allowed to speak publicly about commercial or technology secrets; in the army your rights can be limited in an essential way. But just wave it away arbitrarily, all of it and for the perpetuity?

It can be interesting to see how this is dealt with in real democracies. You sign a contract that limits your rights like freedom of movement or speech without reasonable grounds. A real democratic court in my understanding should tear it apart regardless of whether you sign it or not.

No, it is not reasonable for some association to dictate you on your private posts. A reasonable citizen in this century is expected to understand the difference between a private opinion and a professional one. Pretending that a private individual opinion may stain the image of association is an unreasonable, unbelievable stretch; a just and competent court should see through it. It looks like abuse of power by "associations" that are happily nodded away by facade courts that may not have a clue nor care about these fundamental issues. Again, would be interesting to know how it works in the States and other democratic countries.

We have the right of freedom of association, which includes the freedom from association. If you make a group of people with like interests, you can decide who can be in it and not. The psychologist association is just a group.

Granted, this is at odds with other human rights such as not discriminating on race, gender, sex etc. 

[myata]

1 minute ago, Nexii said:

The psychologist association is just a group.

It is not "just a group". It can decide on one's ability to perform professional work, earn living, provide for the family. Our wink wink courts are all to happy to ignore such thinly hidden from plain sight conditioning.

[Nexii]

He can still practice psychology - anyone can call themselves a therapist in Canada regardless of credentials. Same way that you can be an accountant and not chartered.

Other professions like engineering and medicine, yea, it's more restrictive for obvious reasons (risk to life)

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed....do views expressed on social media platforms invite greater scrutiny and professional ramifications than for more traditional media, like print or film ?   Is that the true nature of Peterson's transgression and punishment ...being a popular force online instead of with a book ?

 

 

That’s exactly right. Peterson is winning hearts and minds as a media juggernaut.  His haters try to bring him down by catching him out for opinions they don’t like and connecting them somehow to a code of conduct that has nothing to do with his expressions or opinions.  Tenuous at best, but tenuous now meets the criteria for cancellation, which is what some jealous peers want.  It’s clear animus.  

[bush_cheney2004]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would say that the nature of social media, that it allows people to eavesdrop on a conversation between a small group of friends from far field, is something we haven't adjusted to socially yet.

 

Agreed...this dynamic has developed far too quickly for groups/societies to adapt objectively.   The short term solution to offensive speech use to be more free speech, but now social media platforms have raised the stakes and competition for views/minds on a much larger scale, regardless of the message.

I became aware of Dr. Jordan Peterson several years ago only because of the very narrow context of human psychology, but he blew up on social media and the associated platform algorithms push more of his content to me in a reinforcing feedback loop (e.g. YouTube).   Peterson has become self sustaining, using nuclear reactor parlance.

 

 

 

[myata]

9 minutes ago, Nexii said:

He can still practice psychology

Wrong: https://cpa.ca/practice/practiceregulation/

[myata]

For example: there's a Constitutional right of personal safety (everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person...). Someone pays you 1K salary to sign it away, completely. What next? They can keep you in a cell, not feed and kick multiple times daily, absolutely legally? It is not considered abuse and assault any longer?

The parallel is entirely correct: a fundamental right cannot be withdrawn or signed away arbitrarily. Say high to picturebook parody of democratic courts. The restaurant is really good next door did you know?

Edited August 23, 2023 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 I became aware of Dr. Jordan Peterson several years ago only because of the very narrow context of human psychology, but he blew up on social media and the associated platform algorithms push more of his content to me in a reinforcing feedback loop (e.g. YouTube).   Peterson has become self sustaining, using nuclear reactor parlance.

I think someone like him is grossly needed.  I follow Sam Harris, who is a more rigorously academic version of a public intellectual/moralist.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Had Peterson's "freedom of expression" views leaned far more to the left, he would be getting a medal instead.

Not around here.

Give it time, as I just reminded, the right wing is a direction not a place.

You wouldn't believe how many right wingers have been outed as lefties around here lately.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not around here.

Give it time, as I just reminded, the right wing is a direction not a place.

You wouldn't believe how many right wingers have been outed as lefties around here lately.

Yeah, apparently I'm a lefty. 

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not around here.

Give it time, as I just reminded, the right wing is a direction not a place.

 

Calling a political position a place OR a direction demonstrates a pretty serious lack of understanding about politics.

It's neither. it's simply a collection of policies and principles that for whatever reason we consider to be 'right' in this day and age.  Many "rigth" ideas such as free speech USED to be 'left" ideas but now the left hates it.

You have the weirdest misconceptions about politics i've encountered in years.  I blame our schools.