Jump to content

Another blow for freedom of speech in Canada


blackbird

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Are you ok with that?  Prosecuting people at their work for things they do outside of work? That's whats happening here.

If you ARE ok with it think carefully - because if it's fair for the left then it's fair for the right to do the same thing  when they're in power and it'll be too late to complain.

I'm assuming this is the question you're asking. 

There's a difference between what people do outside of work and what people are willing to publish on social media. 

I would stand by a business not wanting to do business with someone based on what they put forward on Social Media, especially if that contravene's the companies core values. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Boges said:

people can say whatever they want and avoid repercussions?

1. Perfectly legal. 2. Personal opinion expressed in a private space. 3. Without any provable connection to the formal duties. 4. Firing without cause is not the same as prohibition to practice profession 5. Prohibition to practice without just and sufficient cause amounts to persecution.

So, persecution for expression of personal opinion.

Then it has to be China North. And your pretty book doesn't mean much, obviously.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

You agreed to become a slave. Signed a contract. Did that make slavery legal in China North? To the judge" smiling and clapping, happily ? What consti-- what was it? It has been this way since the time of Adam!

You can't legally agree to becoming a slave, but you can legally agree to shut up.

27 minutes ago, myata said:

In China North. Q.E.D.

Everybody just keep saying "China North" as though you're making a point please...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can't legally agree to becoming a slave, but you can legally agree to shut up.

You said that? Or Constitution? Some rights are more important than other and allowed to be more easily abused?

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Being removed from a professional board

Prohibition to practice profession is a punishment. Punishment without just cause is persecution. This measure was applied to criminals against humanity. Only blind would not see it as such.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, myata said:

You said that? Or Constitution? Some rights are more important than other and allowed to be more easily abused?

Prohibition to practice profession is a punishment. Punishment without just cause is persecution. This measure was applied to criminals against humanity. Only blind would not see it as such.

"An Ontario court has ruled against controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson, upholding a regulatory body's order that he undergo social media training or potentially lose his licence to practice."

 

There is one word in this that invalidates you.. care to guess what it is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, myata said:

1.   Some rights are more important than other and allowed to be more easily abused?

2.  Only blind would not see it as such.

1.  Ever heard of an NDA ?
2. Extreme statements about a practice that is a foundation for professional practices since forever... I'm sorry you are just learning about this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

since forever...

Hanging of witches has been a standard practice since forever till very recently, in civilization terms. Some argument. Is it justified or arbitrary? Is there a just cause and can it be proven before an impartial and competent arbiter (not to be confused)?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, myata said:

Why are you people suddenly so obtuse when asked a simple and direct question? Does prohibition to practice amount to a punishment or, if arbitrary and unjust, persecution?

Try again?

Yes it's punishment.  

Speaking of obtuse - have you or have you not ever heard of an NDA ?  Non disclosure agreement ?  

14 minutes ago, myata said:

Hanging of witches has been a standard practice since forever till very recently, in civilization terms. Some argument. Is it justified or arbitrary? Is there a just cause and can it be proven before an impartial and competent arbiter (not to be confused)?

Hm ?  What ?  

No - I am steadfastly AGAINST the hanging of witches...  How do you want to work back towards a professional body sanctioning a member ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes it's punishment.  

OK. One more.

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How do you want to work back towards a professional body sanctioning a member ?

Does punishment without just cause amount to a persecution? Is the body that assigns sanctions and punishments required to prove that it is relevant, just, proportional and generally, appropriate, necessary and not arbitrary?

Getting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Boges said:

I'm assuming this is the question you're asking. 

There's a difference between what people do outside of work and what people are willing to publish on social media. 

I would stand by a business not wanting to do business with someone based on what they put forward on Social Media, especially if that contravene's the companies core values. 

Ok - so if someone is supporting gay marriage on social media and the business just doesn't like gay marriage - perfectly fine to fire that person?

If someone posts positively about democrats they can be gone the next day because the boss is a republican?

if the boss doesn't like black people and you post about how black pride month is a good thing - you're toast and you're ok with that?

You're claiming you support this thinking right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ok - so if someone is supporting gay marriage on social media and the business just doesn't like gay marriage - perfectly fine to fire that person?

Are you comparing discrimination like this to Peterson's pontifications? It's not a one-fits-all scenario. I did mention, however that religious institutions most certainly make someone's views and conduct contingent to employment. Should a religious institution be forced to employ someone who has beliefs contrary to their core values?

I've seen churches fire married staff for affairs. 

Perhaps fat-shaming is not a core value of psychologists. 

Quote

If the boss doesn't like black people and you post about how black pride month is a good thing - you're toast and you're ok with that?

This is not, in any way, comparable to what's happening to Peterson. But a business could have such a code of conduct. It's not illegal, AFIK. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Does punishment without just cause amount to a persecution? Is the body that assigns sanctions and punishments required to prove that it is relevant, just, proportional and generally, appropriate, necessary and not arbitrary?

1. I think that that was the court case... the court upheld their ruling.  

If you don't think Transgenderism is anything beyond a flaky ideology then you may come to realize that others disagree, and even authorities do also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Boges said:

Are you comparing discrimination like this to Peterson's pontifications? It's not a one-fits-all scenario.

it can ONLY be a one size fits all scenario.  Either such discrimination is ok or it isn't - it can't be based on whether or not you approve of the discrimination.

 

40 minutes ago, Boges said:

I did mention, however that religious institutions most certainly make someone's views and conduct contingent to employment.

Well that's a different story - that's an agreement between two parties.  But - this is just a licensing board specific to an industry. There is no such documented agreement.  You can't impose conditions like that after the fact.

 

42 minutes ago, Boges said:

This is not, in any way, comparable to what's happening to Peterson. But a business could have such a code of conduct. It's not illegal, AFIK. 

It is precisely comparable.  There is a very bad habit on the left to determine if something is 'comparable' based on whether or not they like the comparison.  Either people can be held accountable for their opinions or support for things outside of the work environment by licensing bodies or they cannot.

And again - an agreement between an employer and an employee is one thing. But this is a licensing body and Peterson made no such agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think that that was the court case... the court upheld their ruling.  

If you don't think Transgenderism is anything beyond a flaky ideology then you may come to realize that others disagree, and even authorities do also.

Others are welcome to disagree.  But when you use your own prejudices to validate an abuse of power to punish those with whom you disagree with then that's a problem'

Well - it would be a problem for conservatives and those on the right anyway. Doesn't bother lefties.  Still pretending you're not on the left Mike? :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think that that was the court case... the court upheld their ruling. 

The court" appears to be saying just that (was assumed in the earlier post):

"Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity."

Every point here is weak logically and as a responsible exercise of a critical democratic function

- that being a (publicly disclosed) member of a profession automatically means that every phrase or text, including clearly stated personal opinion has to be understood as a professional statement;

- that intelligent citizens in this century aren't capable of distinguishing professional statements from personal opinion; that "trusted capacity" definition is absolute and has to be applied to all public expressions;

- that the purported "risk of harm" was real or realistic and substantial;

- that the measure prescribed by the college was necessary; reasonable and proportional.

This is a failure of an essential democratic function, and duty. Nothing short of it, as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, myata said:

The court" appears to be saying just that (was assumed in the earlier post):

"Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity."

Every point here is weak logically and as a responsible exercise of a critical democratic function

- that being a (publicly disclosed) member of a profession automatically means that every phrase or text, including clearly stated personal opinion has to be understood as a professional statement;

- that intelligent citizens in this century aren't capable of distinguishing professional statements from personal opinion; that "trusted capacity" definition is absolute and has to be applied to all public expressions;

- that the purported "risk of harm" was real or realistic and substantial;

- that the measure prescribed by the college was necessary; reasonable and proportional.

This is a failure of an essential democratic function, and duty. Nothing short of it, as far as I can see.

I agree with the court.  The decision is entirely reasonable and unsurprising.  I can't explain why you're so upset by it, but as I said NDAs and agreements to not express opinions are normal.

Peterson and the rest are being hysterical about this.  I'm going to do my part to make this issue die a natural death by not talking about it like it's a major decision.  It's exactly what you would think to happen when someone breaches rules of membership in an organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

NDAs and agreements to not express opinions

Any opinions? Over the entire course of the professional career no public opinions allowed? Normal? What reality are you in? How many moons do you see?

This is another good demonstration though. Canada generally has a very vague idea of democracy and democratic rights. The good government has to be good... reasonably, and that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK the definition of "normal" is that nobody in a "regulated profession" can have an individual private opinion different from that of their association expressed publicly. For the lifetime. Under the penalty of prohibition of profession. That's lawyers, teachers, doctors, architects,

and the justice" will have nothing to do with it.

In China North. Agree.

Edited by myata
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,692
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Gator
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Gator went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Gator went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fracnsis Moore earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Gator went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • admined earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...