4 ms·

I feel the same thing is happening in my country, Canada. And no I'm not just referring to recent politically charged event ls during the pandemic. Stuff like

by vivekd 3y ago

I feel the same thing is happening in my country, Canada. And no I'm not just referring to recent politically charged event ls during the pandemic. Stuff like hearings against Judge Donald McLeod after he criticized racial bias in immigration and law enforcement. Or hearings against justice of the peace Julie Lauzon after she wrote a news article critical of the bail system. This kind of standard where the government arrests or charges people for undermining them is a path to unfettered corruption, overwhelming state power free of criticism and the undermining of democratic institutions. I pray these laws fail and are overwritten and those responsible for them are remembered as enemies of the state

unsupp0rted 3y ago
Or mandatory court-ordered “media training” for Jordan Peterson. I don’t like what you’re saying, so here’s how I’m going to make your life hell until you start saying what I expect you to say.
- sillywalk 3y ago
  ( full disclosure: I despise Peterson, and think he is an arrogant[1], dishonest grifter ) Except it wasn't court-ordered media training. The College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, ordered him to take a course on not to be such an {expletive} when speaking publicly as a 'Psychologist'. Peterson filed for Judicial review and > "Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously 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. "The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," ... Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected. "Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote. "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." [0] [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court... [1] "I think I've done demonstrably more than any psychologist has ever produced to increase the prestige and trust of the practice of psychology around the world," Peterson said."
  - vivekd 3y ago
    I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson either. . . But come on, it doesn't take much to see that the decision is bull Do we really believe psychologist losing his license because he said stuff on YouTube outside the scope of his professional practice is "minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression" Does anyone actually buy that. I don't like Peterson, I'm not going to bother watching his dribble to get context But I don't think your position that this has no effect on freedom of speech is realistic. The precedent is clear, all members of regulated professions, doctors, lawyers etc better watch what they say in the public sphere or have their right to practice taken away. I think a lot of Canadians agree with doing this. Which is fine, I mean run the nation any way the people want. But I don't think anyone could , with a straight face say this isn't policing speech. And Peterson is maybe an example of someone we don't like but it's not limited to him, how about Justice McLeod who spoke out against racism in the government? A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech?
    - sillywalk 3y ago
      >A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech? In this particular case, I don't think that what he is being asked to do is unreasonable, nor an assault on Free Speech. I highly recommend reading the (15 page) court ruling), which lays out the background and the Courts' reasoning. [1] To be clear, he is NOT losing his license. He has to take coaching program on professionalism in his public statements when he identifies as a Psychologist. He was repeatedly warned to be more professional in his public statements, and reminded it wasn't so much the content of his opinions, but the unprofessional way he expressed them. He can be a professor emeritus, and well cited clinical psychologist, and a Twitter Troll, but not at the same time. He is free to express himself, but if he speaks as a Psychologist, he's expected to not "express professional opinions in a way "may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional." If he fails to do so, this could result in professional misconduct charges, and at some point losing his license to practice clinical psychology. From the Court Case: > The Panel recognized Dr. Peterson’s “right to freedom of expression” but expressed concern about the significant “impact risks” in this case given that “public statements that are de-meaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.” > Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or par- ody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.” > The Panel is concerned that making public statements that may be inconsistent with the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College poses moderate risks of harm to the public. These potential harms include undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. Public statements of this nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist. e.g. - referring to former clients as "vindictive" and sprouting "a pack of lies", - by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing thing’ …Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.” > referring to the physician who performed Elliot Page’s surgery as a “‘criminal’ appears to be in- flammatory and unprofessional.” - refering to people as a 'prik', or an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”, - speaking about air pollution and child deaths, and stating “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways", >"looked at cumulatively, these public statements may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional. [0] http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/ http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/ [1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23924637/peterson-v-college-of-psychologists-of-ontario-_-superior-court-of-justice.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23924637/peterson-v-c... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court...

by vivekd 3y ago

unsupp0rted 3y ago

Or mandatory court-ordered “media training” for Jordan Peterson. I don’t like what you’re saying, so here’s how I’m going to make your life hell until you start saying what I expect you to say.

sillywalk 3y ago
( full disclosure: I despise Peterson, and think he is an arrogant[1], dishonest grifter ) Except it wasn't court-ordered media training. The College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, ordered him to take a course on not to be such an {expletive} when speaking publicly as a 'Psychologist'. Peterson filed for Judicial review and > "Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously 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. "The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," ... Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected. "Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote. "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." [0] [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court... [1] "I think I've done demonstrably more than any psychologist has ever produced to increase the prestige and trust of the practice of psychology around the world," Peterson said."
- vivekd 3y ago
  I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson either. . . But come on, it doesn't take much to see that the decision is bull Do we really believe psychologist losing his license because he said stuff on YouTube outside the scope of his professional practice is "minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression" Does anyone actually buy that. I don't like Peterson, I'm not going to bother watching his dribble to get context But I don't think your position that this has no effect on freedom of speech is realistic. The precedent is clear, all members of regulated professions, doctors, lawyers etc better watch what they say in the public sphere or have their right to practice taken away. I think a lot of Canadians agree with doing this. Which is fine, I mean run the nation any way the people want. But I don't think anyone could , with a straight face say this isn't policing speech. And Peterson is maybe an example of someone we don't like but it's not limited to him, how about Justice McLeod who spoke out against racism in the government? A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech?
  - sillywalk 3y ago
    >A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech? In this particular case, I don't think that what he is being asked to do is unreasonable, nor an assault on Free Speech. I highly recommend reading the (15 page) court ruling), which lays out the background and the Courts' reasoning. [1] To be clear, he is NOT losing his license. He has to take coaching program on professionalism in his public statements when he identifies as a Psychologist. He was repeatedly warned to be more professional in his public statements, and reminded it wasn't so much the content of his opinions, but the unprofessional way he expressed them. He can be a professor emeritus, and well cited clinical psychologist, and a Twitter Troll, but not at the same time. He is free to express himself, but if he speaks as a Psychologist, he's expected to not "express professional opinions in a way "may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional." If he fails to do so, this could result in professional misconduct charges, and at some point losing his license to practice clinical psychology. From the Court Case: > The Panel recognized Dr. Peterson’s “right to freedom of expression” but expressed concern about the significant “impact risks” in this case given that “public statements that are de-meaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.” > Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or par- ody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.” > The Panel is concerned that making public statements that may be inconsistent with the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College poses moderate risks of harm to the public. These potential harms include undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. Public statements of this nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist. e.g. - referring to former clients as "vindictive" and sprouting "a pack of lies", - by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing thing’ …Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.” > referring to the physician who performed Elliot Page’s surgery as a “‘criminal’ appears to be in- flammatory and unprofessional.” - refering to people as a 'prik', or an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”, - speaking about air pollution and child deaths, and stating “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways", >"looked at cumulatively, these public statements may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional. [0] http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/ http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/ [1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23924637/peterson-v-college-of-psychologists-of-ontario-_-superior-court-of-justice.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23924637/peterson-v-c... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court...