Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[rjs330]

Nonsense.

The restaurant/Jordan Peterson have demonstrated a lack of professionalism in their handling of raw chicken/social media. Consequently, they are required to take a refresher on professionalism in the proper handling of raw chicken/social media.

Nonsense. The restaurant/Peterson didn't want to serve chicken in is restaurant/social media. Consequently they decided to tell him he had to or else because their opinion of what he should.serve was different than his.

 

[BCP1928]

That would be up to the clients. No one is required to see him. Go somewhere else of you don't like his opinions.

Well apparently his loss of.license seems to matter to him. He didn't harm any of his clients. He didn't tell any if his clients to go harm themselves etc.

I might go somewhere else even if I agreed with his opinions, just because--like the licensing board--I didn't like his manner of expressing them.

 

[timothyu]

Well apparently his loss of.license seems to matter to him.

Right. It was being used as a threat to silence/censor him.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Consequently they decided to tell him he had to

They did not. They told him to improve the professionalism of his communications. The style, not the substance. They are not changing his menu. Just advising him that he has to wash the raw chicken liquid off the menu before handing it to the public.

 

[timothyu]

I didn't like his manner of expressing them.

The world need not bow to the thin skinned. Nothing in nature does.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The world need not bow to the thin skinned.

Professionals do need to adhere to professional ethics.

 

[BCP1928]

The world need not bow to the thin skinned. Nothing in nature does.

They need not bow to the coarse and belligerent, either.

 

[timothyu]

Professionals do need to adhere to professional ethics.

And that includes the administrators not bowing to anyone or any trend. Ethics are not a matter of popularity or trends

 

[timothyu]

They need not bow to the coarse and belligerent, either.

Exactly. Peterson's point. ALL are entitled to free speech and opinions.

 

[timothyu]

I don't think that has changed much over the years.

So you think psychologists, or anyone for that matter, should enable delusions?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So you think psychologists, or anyone for that matter, should enable delusions?

That's not the issue. The issue is the professionalism of his communications.

 

[seeking.IAM]

The Supreme Court of Canada have ruled he must undergo 're-education'...

We have an expression, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I reckon there is a good chance that Dr. Peterson's re-education is not going to take. But, he will have complied to keep his license so the Court can be satisfied that it did something, regardless of the intervention's effectiveness.

 

[BCP1928]

So you think psychologists, or anyone for that matter, should enable delusions?

No, but they will get farther if they are not coarse and belligerent.

 

[timothyu]

No, but they will get farther if they are not coarse and belligerent.

Like addressing like

 

[BCP1928]

Like addressing like

That's OK. If the licensing board really wanted to discredit his opinions they would just let him carry on doing it himself.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." --Sun Tzu

 

[timothyu]

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." --Sun Tzu

Point is, it was the mistaken that went running to the media and the board when their coarseness and belligerence towards anyone logical, backfired. Kinda like here when those baiting others run to the mods.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We have an expression, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I reckon there is a good chance that Dr. Peterson's re-education is not going to take. But, he will have complied to keep his license so the Court can be satisfied that it did something, regardless of the intervention's effectiveness.

In this particular case, the court's not really making him do anything. It sounds like the court just declined to get involved in an industry-specific licensing agreement.


However, one interesting facet of this case.

Per CBC's follow up article:
Egale Canada, which had intervenor status in the case, celebrated Thursday's Supreme Court decision. It said 2SLGBTQ+ communities can face discrimination in accessing health care.

"This is why a clinical psychologist making transphobic claims is particularly harmful and directly interferes with trans people's autonomy," said the national advocacy group's legal director, Bennett Jensen, in a media statement.

"Psychologists belong to the group of professions that act as gatekeepers to gender-affirming health care, and they must be held accountable"


If psychology/psychologists are as important as other health providers, and it's supposed to be about science and evidence, and clinicians and "experts" making decisions based on their findings and observations, and the point of contention is professional disagreements over to how to discuss Trans issues within the field and publicly, why was a biased LGBTQ+ activism organization given intervenor status in a case about it and getting to weigh in on which providers should be "held accountable"? That seems like it'd be undermining the credibility of the case as well as the profession as a whole, if people want to treat the profession as actually being in the realm of healthcare.


Would we handle any other healthcare matter in such a way?

If there was a particular case where there was a dispute between a doctor and the medical review board about whether or not the doctor was handing out prescriptions for medicinal marijuana too freely, and the licensing spat made it all the way to a court, would we want lawyers representing anti-Marijuana activist groups to be injected into the legal process as intervenors? Or would we say that it's one of the topics that should exist outside the realm of special interest influence?


To me, Egale's statement reads as:
"We want to prop this specific science-adjacent subjective profession up as the gate-keepers to the thing we want (because the perception of gate-keepers existing gives the patina of rigorousness and legitimacy), but we need to make sure they all agree with what we want so that there aren't actually any barriers, but we can still use them to claim the science & medical community is on our side"


To put it more directly, they want a field that's viewed with the same legitimacy as other healthcare fields, but they want that field to be unified behind catering to them and not pushing back at all.... In other words, it sounds like Egale's expectation of the field is for it to mental health equivalent of a "pill mill".

 

[rjs330]

They did not. They told him to improve the professionalism of his communications. The style, not the substance. They are not changing his menu. Just advising him that he has to wash the raw chicken liquid off the menu before handing it to the public.

Riiiiight. What words would have been acceptable to use instead?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Riiiiight. Quote for me again. What words would have been acceptable to use instead?

"The college's ethics code requires members to use respectful language"

 

[seeking.IAM]

There is a fine line between speaking as a person and speaking in one's professional role. Which side of the line was he on? Which side of the line did he think he was on?

Being a licensed professional does not mean one gives up their personhood.