Cloud Hosting

Toronto

Posted: August 23, 2023 Last Updated: August 23, 2023

An Ontario courtruled againstpsychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson Wednesday, and uphelda regulatory body's order that he take social media training in the wakeofcomplaints about his controversial online posts and statements.

Last November, Peterson,a professor emeritus with the University of Toronto psychologydepartment 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. You can read more about those social media posts here.

The college's complaints committee concluded his controversial public statements could amount to professional misconduct and ordered Peterson to pay for a media coaching program noting 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.

Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimouslydismissed 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," the decision written byJustice Paul Schabasreads, in part. You can read the entire decision at the bottom of this story.

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."

In an interview with CBC News, Petersonsaid hewill take the training and broadcast it.

"I'll comply with their regulations, but I'm not going to do it in secret... And the reason I'm not going to do it in secret is because I don't believe I've done anything wrong," he said.

WATCH | Jordan Peterson defiant over court ruling onsocial media use:

Show more

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, before the decision was released,Peterson said hewished the college luck in its "continued prosecution."

He wrote: "They're going to need it.".

Peterson told CBC News in January that he hadno intention of giving up his fight with the regulatory body, accusing the college of attempting to stymie his speech and discipline him for his political opinions.

He also Wednesday hestands by what he has said and has "zero regrets" for his social media posts.

Peterson said he believes the posts are a question of free speech, which he called "sacred," adding he says what he believes to be true.

"The fundamental issue is one of free discourse," he said. "I like to think and we think by talking in large part. And so I'm not willing to suspend my tongue as a consequence of government decree."

He added he no longer treats patients and his career is instead focused on social and political commentary. Similarly, he doesn't regularly lecture at U of T.

However, Peterson has saidhe wants to retain his licence.

"I deserve it. I earned it. I haven't done anything to justify suspending it, and I don't want to give the hyenas their bones," he said earlier this year.

The college, in a statement released after the decision was issued, said it is committed to carrying out its mandate of protecting the public interest by regulating the practice of psychology.

"The College will review today's decision and undertake next steps in accordance with our mandate and any appropriate legal processes," the statement reads.

(Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

Peterson'scase was watched closely by free speech advocates and regulators in other professions. It featured interveners including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and LGBTQ+ advocacy group Egale Canada,which said in a statement fromExecutive Director Helen Kennedy thatcommunities her organization representsoften face discrimination and barriers when accessing healthcare.

"Today's ruling that as a professional regulatory body, the College of Psychologists of Ontario has the mandate to regulate degrading and demeaning speech by its members, is a step in the right direction in ensuring that 2SLGBTQI individuals can access healthcare safely and without discrimination," Kennedy wrote.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) Executive DirectorNoa Mendelsoh Aviv, meanwhile, said in a statement that the CCLA doesn't endorse Peterson's views, but still argued in court that professional regulatory bodies shouldn't be policing speech that is not directly connected to professional practice.

"Freedom of expression is a right that no individual gives up just because they join a regulated profession," she said.

Carolyn Silver, Chief Legal Officer for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario whoappeared at the hearing on behalf of the college in its intervention, said the college welcomes the decision.

"The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is pleased with the court's decision confirming that members of regulated health professions are expected to maintain high standards of conduct, which at times may result in some curtailment of their freedom of expression," she said in a statement on Wednesday.

"In our view, the decision again confirms that when a regulated health professional breaches expectations set by its regulator, including with respect to public speech, the regulator is best situated to assess and address the potential harm to public trust and confidence in the profession."

Peterson 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.

Here's the Ontario Superior Court of Justicedecision:

Read more:
Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order - CBC.ca

Distroscale

As the court put it, The issue in this case is whether the panels decision to order Dr. Peterson to complete a SCERP (remedial re-education) was reasonable.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The decision essentially states the court will not overturn the College of Psychologists decision because, whether it agrees with the decision or not, it did not meet the test of being so patently unreasonable that the court would second guess the college. According to the court, the college, not the court, is the expert body within its domain.

But there are two significant problems with this decision and result. First, it is not the test that should have been applied to this particular case (which may, in fairness to the court, have been a function of the arguments made before it by counsel). Second, the impact of this decision is to empower woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions that cause someone offence. Of course, if prevailing political sentiments change, others will be next in that firing line.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This decision will inevitably motivate political enemies of any member of a regulatory body whether it be one of lawyers, osteopaths, engineers or, well, psychologists who have no legal basis for any claim otherwise, to harass that person by filing complaints about their expressed opinions or writings.

If someone, for example, complained about this column, they could file a Law Society complaint and make me spend money, time and stress defending myself. There is no real remedy as it is difficult legally to sue someone for filing a disciplinary complaint as such complaints are privileged that is, protected from a lawsuit for defamation.

This decision will encourage such future complaints. The decision also answers the wrong question.

The issue should not have been whether the College of Psychologists decision was transparent and reasonable given its code of ethics (and which it found Peterson had arguably violated), but whether the college even has the legal jurisdiction to develop a code of ethics in the first place that prohibit the free expression of its members, unrelated to their clinical psychological practice, particularly if that free expression breached no laws that is, wasnt criminal nor defamatory.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The court in this case appeared to take the colleges code of ethics as a given, something that it had the right to impose and therefore supported the colleges right to force Peterson to take remedial re-education at his expense as a prelude to potential future discipline if his re-education does not curb his future offensive political comments. The question that should have been put to the court was whether the code of ethics itself overreached and was beyond the colleges legislative mandate.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

My advice is that Queens Park should review this decision and enact legislation preventing regulatory associations from curtailing the otherwise lawful free speech of their members. That is the simple solution to this. Otherwise, those whose opinions are different from those of their governing bodies, and who lack the resources of Peterson to fight back, will be quickly silenced in a manner antithetical to our liberties.

This court decision will embolden professional associations to enact similar codes of ethics that suppress lawful activities which, like Petersons political comments, are unrelated to his profession and are offensive to some. And enable political attacks on members of professional bodies to threaten their livelihoods. Indeed, this is inevitable in light of this decision. And that would be very, very bad for our democracy.

See the original post:
Jordan Peterson ruling empowers woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions - Financial Post

The job (if not the pay) was heavenly: each morning there'd be a pile of manuscripts waiting in the office for me to read: in the afternoon, I'd then try and distill the latest literary manuscript into just 300 words for a hardback, and 150 for a paperback (the two combined, for reference, is the precise length of this column).

It's one of those jobs that sounds easy in practice but hard to pull off in reality. As D. J. Taylor once said, 'Of all the minor literary arts, none is quite so delicate as the production of jacket copy.'

The blurb writer needs to reveal just enough about the story to entice the reader in, but not so much that you end up giving the plot away. When the book was brilliant, it was easy to gush praise: when it was less so, you had to choose your words more carefully.

My regular go-to term was 'absorbing', which might make the book sound unputdownable, but given you could use the same puff to praise a sponge, was my hint this novel was a bit of a damp squib.

Blurb writers rarely get their moment in the sun, but they've been blinking into the daylight this week following complaints from a number of book reviewers about how their words have been cut up and ended up on the book jacket.

The book in question was Beyond Order by controversial US thinker Jordan Peterson.

The back cover boasted praise from James Marriott in The Times, describing the book 'the most lucid and touching prose Peterson has written.'

Except that Marriott's original review had described one of the chapters as 'one of the most sensitive and lucid passages of prose' Peterson had written, which the the blurb writer had edited down to make the whole book sound brilliant.

In fact, Marriott had slated the book overall, describing it as 'repetitious, unvariegated, rhythmless, opaqueness and possessed of a suffocating sense of its own importance.'

I don't think I ever did anything quite as twisted as that, though I can empathise with the blurb writer reading a stash of bad reviews and struggling to find anything to put on the cover.

I remember writing a blurb for one book similarly slated the headline of one review simply read 'Trees died for this' but couldn't bring myself to repurpose that copy. I suspect I said the book was absorbing.

As George Eliot first wrote in The Mill on the Floss, don't judge a book by its cover!

Read the original:
Blurb writers in the spotlight due to latest Jordan Peterson book - Salisbury Journal