Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[JimR-OCDS]

Why? I had the impression that Elliot Page was happy with his transition.

So this is all about the sex stuff.

It's about the psychology around gender transitioning and the consequences, especially for young girls who
transitioned and then try to return to their biological gender. The Canadian board didn't like what Dr Peterson
had to say about it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What's next? Restaurants being subject to health authorities? Lawyers being subject to the Bar? Why can't psychology be like unlicensed home contractors? Everything's fine as long as no more than 3 people stand on my deck.

 

[BCP1928]

It's about the psychology around gender transitioning and the consequences, especially for young girls who
transitioned and then try to return to their biological gender. The Canadian board didn't like what Dr Peterson
had to say about it.

Perhaps so, but the statements made by Peterson didn't sound very much like merely professional disagreement. They were hateful and cruel and directed at specific named persons--hardly the kind of thing one ought to accept from a professional psychologist. There seems to be good reason for the professional body to curb him no matter what side of the issue one is on.

 

[timothyu]

What's next? Restaurants being subject to health authorities?

Perhaps when it will be seen as offensive to eat anything but roasted insects and faux meat.

 

[Larniavc]

For instance, I could go to 10 different psychologists/counselors/therapists with the exact same problem, and it's likely I'll get a least a half dozen different opinions and approaches recommended.

They’re all different professions. You may as well say, “I could go to 10 different doctors, dentists and dieticians with the same problem, and it’s likely I’ll get at least half a dozen opinions and approaches recommended”.

I’m not disputing them being a soft science but your example is bad.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Perhaps so, but the statements made by Peterson didn't sound very much like merely professional disagreement.

Peterson states that this would not have happened in the US as the US Constitution protects freedom of speech.

 

[BCP1928]

Peterson states that this would not have happened in the US as the US Constitution protects freedom of speech.

But it does not necessarily protect him from sanctioning by his professional association. He ought to think about that if he is thinking of moving. His statements were hateful and cruel and directed at specific named persons--hardly the kind of thing one ought to accept from a professional psychologist. There seems to be good reason for the professional body to curb him no matter what side of the issue one is on.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Peterson states that this would not have happened in the US as the US Constitution protects freedom of speech.

Add that one to his growing pile of incorrect statements.

 

[timothyu]

Peterson states that this would not have happened in the US as the US Constitution protects freedom of speech.

Canada had that too but obviously later with caveats, something that started with anti-Semitism and was taken advantage of by others seeking victim status.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But it does not necessarily protect him from sanctioning by his professional association. He ought to think about that if he is thinking of moving. His statements were hateful and cruel and directed at specific named persons--hardly the kind of thing one ought to accept from a professional psychologist. There seems to be good reason for the professional body to curb him no matter what side of the issue one is on.

I don't know, but he did teach at Harvard and knows the system in the US.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Add that one to his growing pile of incorrect statements.

Tell us about one.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But it does not necessarily protect him from sanctioning by his professional association. He ought to think about that if he is thinking of moving. His statements were hateful and cruel and directed at specific named persons--hardly the kind of thing one ought to accept from a professional psychologist. There seems to be good reason for the professional body to curb him no matter what side of the issue one is on.

Are the term's Hateful and Cruel not subjective interpretations?

Does it not need more than someone crying foul to mount legal challenge?

Have we not empowered the passive aggressive who have an agenda?

What is the end game? Folks being afraid to speak their mind so they are easier to control?

 

[Belk]

Are the term's Hateful and Cruel not subjective interpretations?

Does it not need more than someone crying foul to mount legal challenge?

Have we not empowered the passive aggressive who have an agenda?

What is the end game? Folks being afraid to speak their mind so they are easier to control?

As are "Cruel and unusual punishment" but we have muddled along so far.

 

[Larniavc]

What is the end game? Folks being afraid to speak their mind so they are easier to control?

I guess the end game is a society where some folks are marginalised by their behaviour. Which sucks for the people being marginalised but that's how society has always worked. Used to be you could go to jail for being gay, now you get sanctioned by your professional body if you say hurtful things.

Society is a rich tapestry.

 

[Paidiske]

Are the term's Hateful and Cruel not subjective interpretations?

Perhaps, but if we can trust the moderators of this forum to tell the difference between a statement of opinion, and a personal attack, I suspect we can also trust various professional regulating bodies.

What is the end game? Folks being afraid to speak their mind so they are easier to control?

Rather, the protection of vulnerable people, in particular when dealing with professionals with whom they have a right to be safe.

If I said the sorts of things that Jordan Peterson has said, I would likely also face questions about my suitability to work with vulnerable people. That's normal, and healthy, and indeed necessary.

 

[timothyu]

Do you think Jordan doesn't know the difference between vulnerable vs spoiled or self entitled?

 

[Paidiske]

Do you think Jordan doesn't know the difference between vulnerable vs spoiled or self entitled?

It seems to me that he has lost sight of the impact his public statements might have, on people who come to see him as clients. Of course, if he's not seeing any clients any more (as someone claimed up thread) then his loss of licence to practice hardly seems to matter.

 

[timothyu]

He was teaching.

 

[Paidiske]

He was teaching.

Does this affect his ability to teach? Perhaps it should. Is this public belligerance the attitude we want to form in the next generation of practitioners?

 

[Gene2memE]

Peterson states that this would not have happened in the US as the US Constitution protects freedom of speech.

He's wrong though.

Plenty of US professional groups have dismissed/failed to re-certify US citizens over their public statements. For instance, multiple state level medical boards in the US have revoked doctors' licenses to practice medicine for spreading COVID-19 and vaccine disinformation/misinformation.

Dr Peterson has a right to say what he wants (whether in Canada or elsewhere). But, the professional organisations he belongs to also have a right not to be associated with his speech/conduct. Free speech is a two way street.