Another blow for freedom of speech in Canada

[Queenmandy85]

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

People fled from Cuba to escape the Communist dictatorship, yet we had leaders who actually cozied up to the dictator, and many Canadians continued to vote for them.

Like Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker?

[suds]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that the college could be so stupid as to be surprised with dr. Peterson's response.

Their motivations seem pretty clear.  Peterson will have to abide by the code and stop being such a special lil YouTuber or face the accountability he's always talking about...

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.

Edited September 3, 2023 by suds

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You sound like a radical liberal with Orwellian ideology (Marxist).  Many liberals are Marxists pretending to be mainline lovers of democracy and freedom.  Fakers!  You claim to be a conservative.

Nope.  I'm sure you love using those terms but how about talking about your hypocrite Peterson who preaches accountability but makes YouTube videos when he has to face full adult discipline.  

Also - what kind of professional conducts themselves like that ?  He's a disgrace.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, suds said:

1. So Peterson has to abide by 'the Code'? 
2a. 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.
2b. Or perhaps if Peterson stopped identifying himself as a clinical psychologist, would that be enough to placate the college?
3. 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.

1. Yes, as do I and anyone who belongs to a professional organization.  Moreover, I can't even say anything about my EMPLOYER in public or I will be fired with cause.
2a. Yeah, no.  Professional associations absolutely need the right to boot members who embarrass them, otherwise such associations would have zero value.  Cranks and chuds could join and make the designation worthless.
2b. Yes that would definitely work, if he rescinded membership.  I think that this whole issue would die if that happened. 
3. I can assess Peterson's case independent of how I feel about him.  That's called objectivity.  I think when people constantly try to make it about that, it's something the college of psychiatrists would call 'projection'.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You sound like a radical liberal with Orwellian ideology (Marxist).  Many liberals are Marxists pretending to be mainline lovers of democracy and freedom.  Fakers!  You claim to be a conservative.

Says the guy who worships a sadist that claims to love us.

[suds]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2a. Yeah, no.  Professional associations absolutely need the right to boot members who embarrass them, otherwise such associations would have zero value.  Cranks and chuds could join and make the designation worthless.

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

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, suds said:

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

Yes, it's an opinion because we'd all have to guess if we had professional engineers who were allowed to espouse conspiracy theories, call women fat and ugly, and so on... 

Come to think of it, Trump has ushered in the era of the "insult comic" president so it's no surprise that his troll army wants all of society to behave this way.

Just an opinion, yes.  Your opinion might be that it would be awesome for doctors and lawyers to call people "n*gger" online...

Edited September 3, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[suds]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, it's an opinion because we'd all have to guess if we had professional engineers who were allowed to espouse conspiracy theories, call women fat and ugly, and so on... 

Come to think of it, Trump has ushered in the era of the "insult comic" president so it's no surprise that his troll army wants all of society to behave this way.

Just an opinion, yes.  Your opinion might be that it would be awesome for doctors and lawyers to call people "n*gger" online...

"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).

Edited September 4, 2023 by suds

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nope.  I'm sure you love using those terms but how about talking about your hypocrite Peterson who preaches accountability but makes YouTube videos when he has to face full adult discipline.  

Also - what kind of professional conducts themselves like that ?  He's a disgrace.

I watched part of a youtube video of him discussing Exodus in the Bible with six other knowledgeable and gifted speakers and found nothing wrong.  Why you would say he is a "disgrace" is absurd.  He has 1.4 million youtube followers on his youtube channel I listened to.  He obviously has a huge population that enjoy listening to him.

[suds]

 

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.

 

 

[TreeBeard]

@blackbird - don’t you want laws against blasphemy?  How do you square that with your supposed love of freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech only if you like the speech?

[blackbird]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

@blackbird - don’t you want laws against blasphemy?  How do you square that with your supposed love of freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech only if you like the speech?

Blasphemy is a whole different category.  Yes, it should be illegal.  There are certain things that even freedom of speech does not permit.  But it should be very limited.  Liberals and left want to forbid anything they disagree with.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, suds said:

"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).

Yeah, well it DID go to court and although this one was a slam dunk, abuse of power wouldn't be.  

Nobody who believes in free speech should be concerned by Peterson's continued ldiocy.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Blasphemy is a whole different category.  Yes, it should be illegal.  There are certain things that even freedom of speech does not permit.  But it should be very limited.  Liberals and left want to forbid anything they disagree with.

Obviously, blasphemy should not be illegal.  The very idea is ridiculous, and is solely the province of religious authoritarians.

That said, I do think a church, or any other religious organization, should be able to expel anyone who blasphemes against the God they purport to worship.  Or maybe get them to take some courses instead.

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Obviously, blasphemy should not be illegal.

I don't think you would have respect for strangers in public places, like restaurants, buses, planes, and any place where the public gathers.  In a free society, everyone should be able to go to public places or on public transportation without having to listen to some foul-mouthed twit swearing or blaspheming the God he worships.  I am sure you should understand freedom of speech does not include the right to offend other people in those situations who just happen to be sharing the same public space.  It is just a simple matter of respect for other people and strangers in public spaces.

Edited September 4, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Blasphemy is a whole different category.  Yes, it should be illegal.  There are certain things that even freedom of speech does not permit.  But it should be very limited.  Liberals and left want to forbid anything they disagree with.

You have blasphemed Allah on this website and offended Muslims with your speech.  Should you go to jail?

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You have blasphemed Allah on this website and offended Muslims with your speech.  Should you go to jail?

Not what I was talking about.  This is a discussion/debate forum where one can and does talk about their religious beliefs and you can disagree with Islam or Christianity, which you do.  Everyone disagrees with what others say on here.  Are they "offended"?  I don't know.  Never heard people say they were offended.  Usually they just reply with some counter argument or comment.  So no, nobody should go to jail.  It is still partly a free country.  If you get offended by what other people say, maybe you should not be on here. 

Comments against other religious beliefs are not necessarily blasphemy either.  The definition of blasphemy is: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk:  Therefore if one is defending the true God of the Bible against the false gods, that does not fit the definition of blasphemy.

These kind of forums are definitely not the same as being in a public place such as a bus, restaurant, or park with other people.  People should not be blaspheming in a public place.  Do you swear or blaspheme in cafes or other public places around other people?  That is repulsive.

Edited September 4, 2023 by blackbird

[suds]

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?

Edited September 4, 2023 by suds

[myata]

7 hours ago, suds said:

Freedom of thought, opinion, blah blah blah, but you gotta be nice about it, or else!

Looks like the Constitution and democracy in Canada is just that, as stated. A nice decoration but nothing to worry, someone always knows best. Only the daily travail, in the imitation democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, myata said:

Looks like the Constitution and democracy in Canada is just that, as stated. A nice decoration but nothing to worry, someone always knows best. Only the daily travail, in the imitation democracy.

Do you think it's ok to fire someone who make public statements about your company?

[myata]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

fire someone who make public statements about your company?

Are you just pretending or really that? We've been here already.

- Prohibition of profession is not some "company"

- Association cannot police expression of opinion in a democracy

- Opinion in own, private area is not necessarily "public"; your conversation at a restaurant can be overheard by public with all the consequences. Yes?

Edited September 4, 2023 by myata

[myata]

"Constitutional freedoms"? "Fundamental rights"? What is it, Latin?

You know the restaurant is really good across the street, tried it yet?

[Zeitgeist]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nope.  I'm sure you love using those terms but how about talking about your hypocrite Peterson who preaches accountability but makes YouTube videos when he has to face full adult discipline.  

Also - what kind of professional conducts themselves like that ?  He's a disgrace.

Conducts himself like what?  Don’t be such a baby.  

[myata]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

what kind of professional conducts themselves like that ? 

Oh someone great and wise is supervising our "conduct" now? What "Constitution", Latin? China North, welcome!

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Conducts himself like what?  Don’t be such a baby.  

Calls people names and acts like a troll.  I guess you don't think the people should conduct themselves with any kind of dignity.

5 minutes ago, myata said:

Oh someone great and wise is supervising our "conduct" now? What "Constitution", Latin? China North, welcome!

And you wouldn't kick someone out of your house for acting like a boor?

 

Private spaces are a thing.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Michael Hardner