Politics

[rookhawk]

The "country" didn't mandate his needing to complete training, his professional licensing body did: As it turns out, the Ontario College of Psychologists frowns upon one of its members emailing patients politically charged content and links to fundraising drives on Patreon, and encouraging suicide on social media.

An Ontario Court further upheld that yes, ethical matters are very much within the preview of the regulatory body.

Peterson is a winner of the play stupid games, win stupid prizes award. It's a mess entirely of his own making.

How so? He exercised free speech? He has beliefs about a variety of issues anchored by his interpretation of actual clinical research. On the other hand, his college of psychologists holds different political opinions and wants him to go to a political reeducation camp.

I've not seen a persuasive argument why his political speech merits censure and revocation of his psychologists license, but I'm all ears if you want to lay a foundation.

 

[mdwest]

With a personal net worth hovering a little over $8M and a "job" that largely just requires Peterson to pontificate through various online media outlets.. Im guessing he's not too terribly upset about losing his license and no longer being allowed to practice in Canada..

If his objective was to get his message out and to gain an audience.. he has certainly succeeded in his mission.. (8.9M followers on Instagram.. 6M followers on X... 7.5M followers on YouTube)...

He stopped seeing patients in 2017... well before his license was suspended.. his "fight" to have his license reinstated is more about furthering his message (ie Canadas liberals don't want free speech.. come listen to what I have to say about that!) than it is practicing (something he has no intention of returning to)...

He's currently living in Arizona, near his daughter.. and he is an Albertan.. a place where conservative views and opinions are fairly well accepted (its not like he'd be an outcast in his home town)..

Im going to guess he LOVES the fact that so many people in Ontario and Quebec cant stand him... that just makes him more famous..

“There’s only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” - Oscar Wilde

 

[OxfordTheCat]

How so? He exercised free speech? He has beliefs about a variety of issues anchored by his interpretation of actual clinical research. On the other hand, his college of psychologists holds different political opinions and wants him to go to a political reeducation camp.

I've not seen a persuasive argument why his political speech merits censure and revocation of his psychologists license, but I'm all ears if you want to lay a foundation.

The revocation of his license is a result of his failure to abide by the recommendations of the disciplinary committee of his professional licensing body - that he complete social media and professional ethics related training.

And the "persuasive argument" is that a clinical psychologist should not be emailing his patients list with requests for Patreon donations and politically charged material, and that he shouldn't have posted on his public Twitter encouraging a transgender person to commit suicide.

His freedom of expression is in no way restricted.
He's free to do it (and has continued to do so).

He just can't do it while being a practising psychologist.

Not in any way different than the routine ethical and public restrictions that public servants, military service members, professional engineers, accountants, and a litany of other professions must adhere to.

 

[OxfordTheCat]

With a personal net worth hovering a little over $8M and a "job" that largely just requires Peterson to pontificate through various online media outlets.. Im guessing he's not too terribly upset about losing his license and no longer being allowed to practice in Canada..

If his objective was to get his message out and to gain an audience.. he has certainly succeeded in his mission.. (8.9M followers on Instagram.. 6M followers on X... 7.5M followers on YouTube)...

He stopped seeing patients in 2017... well before his license was suspended.. his "fight" to have his license reinstated is more about furthering his message (ie Canadas liberals don't want free speech.. come listen to what I have to say about that!) than it is practicing (something he has no intention of returning to)...

He's currently living in Arizona, near his daughter.. and he is an Albertan.. a place where conservative views and opinions are fairly well accepted (its not like he'd be an outcast in his home town)..

Im going to guess he LOVES the fact that so many people in Ontario and Quebec cant stand him... that just makes him more famous..

“There’s only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” - Oscar Wilde

Pretty much this.
The entire thing was a media stunt from the start, and an effort to extend his fifteen minutes of fame and gather in more donations from his flock.

It's the idea that he was in any way unjustly persecuted that is nonsense. He milked it for all it was worth.

 

[rookhawk]

The revocation of his license is a result of his failure to abide by the recommendations of the disciplinary committee of his professional licensing body - that he complete social media and professional ethics related training.

And the "persuasive argument" is that a clinical psychologist should not be emailing his patients list with requests for Patreon donations and politically charged material, and that he shouldn't have posted on his public Twitter encouraging a transgender person to commit suicide.

His freedom of expression is in no way restricted.
He's free to do it (and has continued to do so).

He just can't do it while being a practising psychologist.

Not in any way different than the routine ethical and public restrictions that public servants, military service members, professional engineers, accountants, and a litany of other professions must adhere to.

Total conflation of free speech from clinical therapy.

The quotes I believe you're referring to are included in the complaint against Peterson. They track as follows:

“A tweet on January 2, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: “You’re free to leave at any point.””

Whatever orientation or mental illnesses someone has when excercising free speech is not in the purview or obligation to coddle by Dr. Peterson while in the public square. That is not in a therapeutic environment.

Second quote was hyperbole explaining the logic of the left: Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said: “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways””.

It's also farcical coming from Canada's views on suicide which Dr. Peterson opposes. He is not in favor of permitting State assisted suicide for those with depression or addiction, whereas his "college" is in favor of "therapeutic suicide" for a variety of treatable conditions.

So the crux of it isn't his professional talents, its his free speech which is both logical and independent from his work seeing patients. It's the former that the leftists want to suppress at every turn.

 

[deewayne2003]

Craighead really had to move to the US to pursue the career he is currently chasing (although clearly that was a choice/decision he made)... Hes working for Staccato and for Field Ethos and doing some other occasional "work".. No market for any of that living in London (although he probably could have pulled off his Field Ethos duties from there)..

Per Craighead's interview on SRS he didn't immigrate for career, he's basically renounced his UK citizenship because he sees England as a "fallen state" and he goes into detail about a conversation he had with a London cab driver that congratulated him on leaving the country.

Craighead also wrote a children's book called "The Wrong Wolf"

https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Wolf-Chris-Craighead/dp/B0CKYFR645

"From the very start, the Wrong Wolf knew he was different. Over the course of a journey marked by loss, mercy, courage and self-sacrifice, he learns that where and how you are born does not always determine where you end up"

"This book is dedicated to all the wolves living in the wrong pack."

I can only imagine what a British SAS member would have to go through to become so disenfranchised with his home country; but I also see it as a glimmer of hope for our nation that a man of that capacity would not only choose the country that I was lucky enough to be born in but also the state of Texas I was born and raised in.

I’d the value of an intellectual who willingly gives up the chance to enact change when he had the platform to do it any higher than the able bodied male refugee who flees instead of taking up arms to defend his country?

The intellectual & abled bodied refugee may well see their chance to enact change in this world from a location other than where they were born; or both see that their native lands may well imprison them for speaking out.

Jordan Peterson has openly said that he believes Canada would ultimately start putting people in jail for speaking out against the government in Ottawa; to which the interviewer told him that he wasn't being jailed he had simply been FINED for views on compelled speech, to which Peterson replied......

"What happens if I don't pay the fine?.... I go to jail"

Much the same in the UK - This couple was arrested in England for speaking out against their child's school board in a whatsapp message.

They were later released and the investigating detective said there was no evidence to charge them with any crime.... But if that is so, then how did SIX police officers end up at their house with an arrest warrant?

Point being.... You can't blame the hero's of a nation for leaving a country that persecutes them.

 

[OxfordTheCat]

.

Whatever orientation or mental illnesses someone has when excercising free speech is not in the purview or obligation to coddle by Dr. Peterson while in the public square. That is not in a therapeutic environment.

Second quote was hyperbole explaining the logic of the left: Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said: “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways””.

It's also farcical coming from Canada's views on suicide which Dr. Peterson opposes. He is not in favor of permitting State assisted suicide for those with depression or addiction, whereas his "college" is in favor of "therapeutic suicide" for a variety of treatable conditions.

So the crux of it isn't his professional talents, its his free speech which is both logical and independent from his work seeing patients. It's the former that the leftists want to suppress at every turn.

Whether or not it's in therapy is irrelevant.
Certain licensed professionals are obligated by their professional ethics to moderate their behaviour, and their speech, in a public forum.

Even those outside of licensed professionals (who agree to adhere to the professional standards when joining), freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence. You are free to go on public television and denigrate your employer. That employer is free to fire you. You are free to grab a reporter's microphone and yell "fuck her right in the pussy" (as was the trend a few years ago). You can expect to be fired.

Freedom of expression is freedom from government persecution from your speech where it doesn't violate law. It's not freedom from personal or professional consequences.

The crux of it isn't his professional talents or his speech. It's his ethical obligations under the code of conduct he agreed to follow.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Per Craighead's interview on SRS he didn't immigrate for career, he's basically renounced his UK citizenship because he sees England as a "fallen state" and he goes into detail about a conversation he had with a London cab driver that congratulated him on leaving the country.

Craighead also wrote a children's book called "The Wrong Wolf"

https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Wolf-Chris-Craighead/dp/B0CKYFR645

"From the very start, the Wrong Wolf knew he was different. Over the course of a journey marked by loss, mercy, courage and self-sacrifice, he learns that where and how you are born does not always determine where you end up"

"This book is dedicated to all the wolves living in the wrong pack."

I can only imagine what a British SAS member would have to go through to become so disenfranchised with his home country; but I also see it as a glimmer of hope for our nation that a man of that capacity would not only choose the country that I was lucky enough to be born in but also the state of Texas I was born and raised in.


The intellectual & abled bodied refugee may well see their chance to enact change in this world from a location other than where they were born; or both see that their native lands may well imprison them for speaking out.

Jordan Peterson has openly said that he believes Canada would ultimately start putting people in jail for speaking out against the government in Ottawa; to which the interviewer told him that he wasn't being jailed he had simply been FINED for views on compelled speech, to which Peterson replied......

"What happens if I don't pay the fine?.... I go to jail"

Much the same in the UK - This couple was arrested in England for speaking out against their child's school board in a whatsapp message.

They were later released and the investigating detective said there was no evidence to charge them with any crime.... But if that is so, then how did SIX police officers end up at the house with an arrest warrant?

Point being.... You can't blame the hero's of a nation for leaving a country that persecutes them.

I would hardly call him the hero of a nation , he had the chance and the platform to possibly achieve greatness and fled in the face of oppression to set himself up in a life of luxury in a career made mostly on criticisms of the system he fled. I think he is a very intelligent articulate man who wasted an incredible opportunity to enact the changes he cries for.

Is Daniel castellon as much an inspiration as Craighead?

 

[LivingTheDream]

Freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected right. Freedom from consequences is not.

This is an interesting statement. If the government is the one applying the consequences is freedom of expression truly protected?

 

[rookhawk]

.


Whether or not it's in therapy is irrelevant.
Certain licensed professionals are obligated by their professional ethics to moderate their behaviour, and their speech, in a public forum.

Even those outside of licensed professionals (who agree to adhere to the professional standards when joining), freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence. You are free to go on public television and denigrate your employer. That employer is free to fire you. You are free to grab a reporter's microphone and yell "fuck her right in the pussy" (as was the trend a few years ago). You can expect to be fired.

Freedom of expression is freedom from government persecution from your speech where it doesn't violate law. It's not freedom from personal or professional consequences.

The crux of it isn't his professional talents or his speech. It's his ethical obligations under the code of conduct he agreed to follow.

Using your rubric, these insults would get me banned from a profession yet they wouldn't:

As a lawyer: you're a jerk, I hope someone gets a summary judgement against you.

As a CPA: I hope you get screwed by an IRS audit.

As a Civil Engineer; I hope your pond's levy breaks.

As a fortune teller: I hope you draw the fool card from the tarot deck.

As a USDA inspector: I hope it doesn't rain over your fields.

A truck driver: I hope your semi throws a rod.

You're conflating employer regulation of free speech with licensure. If you say speech offensive to your employer, they can fire you. That's not what's going on here, you're saying free speech should result in you being disbarred from a license required for you to ply a trade.

Your logic is a slippery slope to State mandated speech in the same way as described by the old Reagan joke: "In the USA, we have the freedom to speak out against the president. So what, in the USSR we too can speak out against the US president!".

 

[OxfordTheCat]

This is an interesting statement. If the government is the one applying the consequences is freedom of expression truly protected?

In this case, it's a professional regulatory body.
But in other cases:
Of course it is. It just is subject to limits, like any other right.

You have freedom of movement, but there are limits, regulations, and consequences. You can't go anywhere you please, you need to travel at the speed limit, and if you violate enough regulations it's either a fine, a suspension of driving licence, or even incarceration.

The Second Amendment exists in the US, but you forfeit it if you're incarcerated, and you can't open carry your AR next to the President.

Freedom of speech exists, but you can't say anything you want or broadcast pornography on federally regulated airwaves, there's the yelling fire in a crowded theatre example, and you can't libel or slander.

 

[Pheroze]

Using your rubric, these insults would get me banned from a profession yet they wouldn't:

As a lawyer: you're a jerk, I hope someone gets a summary judgement against you.

As a CPA: I hope you get screwed by an IRS audit.

As a Civil Engineer; I hope your pond's levy breaks.

As a fortune teller: I hope you draw the fool card from the tarot deck.

As a USDA inspector: I hope it doesn't rain over your fields.

A truck driver: I hope your semi throws a rod.

You're conflating employer regulation of free speech with licensure. If you say speech offensive to your employer, they can fire you. That's not what's going on here, you're saying free speech should result in you being disbarred from a license required for you to ply a trade.

Your logic is a slippery slope to State mandated speech in the same way as described by the old Reagan joke: "In the USA, we have the freedom to speak out against the president. So what, in the USSR we too can speak out against the US president!".

My recollection from this case was the issue was using the license as a way of qualifying his opinion as being more credible - essentially by identifying his qualifications he was saying “As a licensed professional, my professional opinion is X. “. The licensing body said you are not entitled to do that as your opinion is against our policy. I thought at the time that if he had remained silent about his professional association, or disclaimed any association of his opinion to his professional practice, that could have changed the outcome of the litigation. I didn’t stay current with the litany of similar cases involving cops, doctors and nurses. But I think that is the crux of it.

Interesting to note that our Charter has a specific exception to certain rights that defers to the will of the legislature. The question is “is this a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society”. This is an exception I often hear Americans say their constitutional provisions should have whenever a judge goes against the prevailing opinion. However, I found that during COVID our rights basically became useless as everything the government did was acceptable limiting of the rights to deal with the perceived emergency. Beware what you wish for.

 

[spike.t]

View attachment 675982

Was wondering......

 

[VertigoBE]

Was wondering......

They all need to get some airtime one day in the year... 1/04 seems appropriate

 

[spike.t]

So who is going win?...

Florida special election leaves Republicans anxious

With a 218 to 213 majority in the House, Republicans cannot afford to lose winnable elections – let alone slam dunks.

www.bbc.com

 

[rookhawk]

So who is going win?...

Florida special election leaves Republicans anxious

With a 218 to 213 majority in the House, Republicans cannot afford to lose winnable elections – let alone slam dunks.

www.bbc.com

@spike.t this is anecdotal but disturbing.

In the WI supreme court race that determines if we stay a purple state or results in gerrymandering congressional districts to turn us perpetually a blue state there are distburbing patterns. We had until 3/27 to request an absentee ballot by policy. We requested ours weeks ago but they never arrived. When I arrived to vote in my sleepy rural township the poll workers noted that many people did not receive their absentee ballot and had been coming in to vote in person. (Inference: many people that request absentee ballots cannot come in to vote in person)

I've heard no such similar stories in urban and suburban centers, only in rural polling places today. If this is widespread, it will be enough for the dems to win and gerrymander our congressional districts.

 

[deewayne2003]

I would hardly call him the hero of a nation , he had the chance and the platform to possibly achieve greatness and fled in the face of oppression to set himself up in a life of luxury in a career made mostly on criticisms of the system he fled. I think he is a very intelligent articulate man who wasted an incredible opportunity to enact the changes he cries for.

Is Daniel castellon as much an inspiration as Craighead?

LOL Daniel Castellon was never persecuted by the USA in any way, despite his constant waving of a Mexican flag while living in Russia and collecting a disability check he is just a man living off his service check and bought and paid for Russian propaganda; although I am happy anytime someone who waves a Mexican flag around decides to leave my country.

If your fishing for Canadian heros I would submit Dallas Alexander who is a JTF2 Canadian serviceman..... You know the ones who made that world record sniper shot & had to pack and run when Canada was so eager to brag about it that they gave away their position in press releases.

He speaks openly about how the Canadian government persecuted him for not wanting to be vaccinated and even went as far as to tell him his religious objection as a "first nations" Canadian was completely denied with the end result being him leaving JTF2

 

[OxfordTheCat]

Using your rubric, these insults would get me banned from a profession yet they wouldn't:


As a CPA: I hope you get screwed by an IRS audit.

You're conflating employer regulation of free speech with licensure. If you say speech offensive to your employer, they can fire you. That's not what's going on here, you're saying free speech should result in you being disbarred from a license required for you to ply a trade.

Using your CPA example, the CPA Code of Conduct states:

Chartered Professional Accountants conduct themselves at all times in a manner which willmaintain the good reputation of the profession and serve the public interest.
In doing so, members and firms are expected to avoid any action that would discredit the profession.
...
At all times, members and firms are expected to act in relation to other professional colleagues withthe courtesy and consideration they would expect to be accorded by their professional colleagues

So following your example, if a CPA threatened say, a former or current client with that statement on social media, they might be subject to a compliant. If the CPA board disciplines them, and they refuse the discipline, they lose the right to continue to be a CPA.

They're still free to do taxes, do other peoples taxes, review financial statements, do payroll and book keeping, they just aren't able to say that they're a CPA while doing it.

Peterson is free to continue to dole out his pablum for incels via print, television, youtube, Twitter, and any other media he feels fit. He can continue to act as a counsellor, give advice, even harass transgender people on social media.

He just can't say he's a licensed member of the College of Psychologists.

Things like the CPA example is the literal opposite of state-mandated speech: It's industry professionals regulating themselves.

And the slippery-slope argument is considered a fallacy for a reason.

 

[deewayne2003]

Using your CPA example, the CPA Code of Conduct states:

Chartered Professional Accountants conduct themselves at all times in a manner which willmaintain the good reputation of the profession and serve the public interest.
In doing so, members and firms are expected to avoid any action that would discredit the profession.
...
At all times, members and firms are expected to act in relation to other professional colleagues withthe courtesy and consideration they would expect to be accorded by their professional colleagues

So following your example, if a CPA threatened say, a former or current client with that statement on social media, they might be subject to a compliant. If the CPA board disciplines them, and they refuse the discipline, they lose the right to continue to be a CPA.

They're still free to do taxes, do other peoples taxes, review financial statements, do payroll and book keeping, they just aren't able to say that they're a CPA while doing it.

Peterson is free to continue to dole out his pablum for incels via print, television, youtube, Twitter, and any other media he feels fit. He can continue to act as a counsellor, give advice, even harass transgender people on social media.

He just can't say he's a licensed member of the College of Psychologists.

Things like the CPA example is the literal opposite of state-mandated speech: It's industry professionals regulating themselves.

And the slippery-slope argument is considered a fallacy for a reason.

So bottom line, you support "re-education" for someone refusing to accept forced speech?

I'm sure their were people in 1930's Germany that supported everyone having to say "Heil Hitler" under the disguise of national unity and that it would never lead to further erosion of their rights.

"Peterson is free to continue to dole out his pablum for incels via print, television, youtube, Twitter, and any other media he feels fit. He can continue to act as a counsellor, give advice, even harass transgender people on social media."

Your comment reads like a headline from "The View" but you are correct, he is free to do those things in his new country of residence.

 

[rookhawk]

So bottom line, you support "re-education" for someone refusing to accept forced speech?

I'm sure their were people in 1930's Germany that supported everyone having to say "Heil Hitler" under the disguise of national unity and that it would never lead to further erosion of their rights.

"Peterson is free to continue to dole out his pablum for incels via print, television, youtube, Twitter, and any other media he feels fit. He can continue to act as a counsellor, give advice, even harass transgender people on social media."

Your comment reads like a headline from "The View" but you are correct, he is free to do those things in his new country of residence.

Precisely. I'm thinking @OxfordTheCat is going to hate living in the world to come if his ideals win the day. You cannot predict whether a far right or far left government seats itself in power perennially. In his world, opposition to the politically correct speech of the day will result in someone unable to ply their trade. (e.g. take the shot or lose your job, speak out against the shot and get banned from social media) That happens too many times, you end up with a civil war. Sane people do not want to create the conditions that results in those potential consequences.