Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[rjs330]

It's not that complicated. What kind of speech can the government impose repercussions on you for?

Nothing*. (*obviously inciting imminent lawless action and a few other extreme exceptions exist)

What kind of speech can your employer impose repercussions on you for?

Almost all (maybe all) states are at-will, so they can fire you for anything. So.... anything.

Which situation pertains to Jordan Peterson? The second. Therefore, any of his whining about free speech is just wrong from the get-go.

I agree with that completely. The Constitution is clear on the government may make no law prohibiting such.

Canada has no such protections. And businesses may limit the speech on their employees as long as they are not discriminating.

But the thing is. They ARE limiting the speech of others. And we have a right to fight and argue about whether it's right to do so. It may not be illegal, but it's not right. And that is an argument worth having. Because if your job is at stake "shut up.and take it" is your only option.

And I don't think that's right. And that we can argue about.

 

[timothyu]

Canada has no such protections

Charter of Rights for one.

CCF granted intervenor status in Dr. Jordan Peterson freedom of expression dispute with College of Psychologists - Canadian Constitution Foundation

TORONTO: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has been granted intervenor status in the legal dispute between Canadian psychologist, author and media

theccf.ca

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Are we sure these are all CYA provisions?

Or is it a virtue signal of sorts? Knowing how much those universities cost, and knowing that their primary customer-base is young people, perhaps it serves their financial interests to "do what the kids think is cool"?

Is there a substantive difference for the purposes of this discussion? In either case, it's not representative of how most people act or communicate, which was my point.

For instance, Stanford's "Elimination of Harmful Language in IT" initiative was one that the faculty put together, and they ended up reverting the policy after what they called "intense feedback"

(but not before WSJ kept a permanent copy and published it)

Stanford ‘Harmful Language’ list removed after backlash

Stanford removed its Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative website after what it described as “intense recent feedback.”

stanforddaily.com

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

A small group of activists came up with some "radical woke-ist" ideas in an echo chamber, which were roundly panned as soon as they were made public. Pretty sure that supports my argument.

It seems to me that you've convinced yourself that "the youth" are out of hand, and are taking isolated examples as representative of the whole simply because that fits your preconceptions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because if your job is at stake

That's what at-will employment is all about. There's a reason most of us don't use our names for our usernames.

 

[Pommer]

“Controversial personage gets comeuppance” threads are strange.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It seems to me that you've convinced yourself that "the youth" are out of hand, and are taking isolated examples as representative of the whole simply because that fits your preconceptions.

Is there a substantive difference for the purposes of this discussion?

If it's really just "a few isolated examples from an echo chamber", then there would be no need for a CYA move on the part of the universities would there? No university is going to their pants sued off from 1 or 2 random people complaining.


How many different "isolated examples" do their have to be before it's not just a fringe, and emblematic of a wider mindset/movement?

https://www.moreincommon.com/media/dxrh2mjs/annual-survey-report_9-19-23-1.pdf

In short, you don't end up with an environment where 45% are afraid to express their honest viewpoints (and 22% have even admitted to trying to get someone punished/cancelled) in a scenario where "it's just a few isolated incidents"

It's more prevalent than people want to admit, and given the political leanings, the other two charts suggesting that liberal students (who are probably emboldened by the fact that the faculty is mostly on their side) are 5 times more likely to try to get someone "punished" for not bending a knee to their ideologies, is not surprising.

Misgendering should be a crime, according to millennials

Among Americans as a whole, most think it should be legal to call someone by the wrong pronouns.

www.newsweek.com

A sizeable portion of both Millennials and Gen Z thinks misgendering should be a criminal offense.

So these aren't just my preconceptions.

When 33% of a generation openly admits to a pollster "Yes, I think refusing to call someone Ze/Zir should involve fines and/or jail time", and 42% of self-identified "very liberal" college students have no reservations about admitting to a pollster that they've tried to get someone punished or cancelled for saying something they didn't like, I think we can take the "it's just false preconceptions and a few bad apples" argument off the table.

If 45% of people were worried about arson, and 22% of people openly admitted to committing arson, we wouldn't say "arson is a nothingburger, people who are worried about it are blowing it out of proportion based on a few isolated incidents"

 

[rjs330]

Furthermore the question has to b3 asked if the limits or rules for speech in the profession are clearly defined and enforced unilaterally. Can we find others in the profession who have used unprofessional language toward people and have they faced discipline for it. Or is it only one sided?

 

[rjs330]

“Controversial personage gets comeuppance” threads are strange.

I don't think so at all. I think they bring up legitimate questions. Why are they controversial? Why do they need a comeuppance? Is it universal? These are legitimate conversations to see who exactly is involved and who is trying to silence who.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Last time I checked, respect and decency isn't an "agenda".

Yes... but respect and decency can sustain a shift ideological foundations.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If it's really just "a few isolated examples from an echo chamber", then there would be no need for a CYA move on the part of the universities would there? No university is going to their pants sued off from 1 or 2 random people complaining.

How many people had to eat the silica gel before the lawyers said they had to add "Do Not Eat" to the packaging? How many people still eat it?

In short, you don't end up with an environment where 45% are afraid to express their honest viewpoints in a scenario where "it's just a few isolated incidents"

It only takes one person to stir up the crowd, and it only takes one case in which someone is censured for them to start measuring their words. Very few people can have an outsize effect on speech - especially thanks to the reach afforded by the internet - but that does not mean that their beliefs are representative of the ways in which most people interact.

(and 22% have even admitted to trying to get someone punished/cancelled)

Honestly, I'm somewhat surprised that number isn't higher. First of all, you left off "actively called [someone] out" - which happens pretty often (I've seen it on here plenty, and not just from the liberals) - and, if I were to be asked that question, I'd consider the times I've reported people in video games for using offensive language to be "trying to get someone punished."

A sizeable portion of both Millennials and Gen Z thinks misgendering should be a criminal offense.

So these aren't just my preconceptions.

When 33% of a generation openly admits to a pollster "Yes, I think refusing to call someone Ze/Zir should involve fines and/or jail time", and 42% of self-identified "very liberal" college students have no reservations about admitting to a pollster that they've tried to get someone punished or cancelled for saying something they didn't like, I think we can take the "it's just false preconceptions and a few bad apples" argument off the table.

The wording of the question isn't in the article, but based on how it's presented, this was about intentional misgendering. In other words, if someone asks you to call them a certain thing, and you insist on calling them something else. I would say that it's debatable whether or not that should be considered a form of hate speech, but given the current attitudes towards transgender people in the US, you can make a strong argument for it. The question also explicitly only discussed masculine/feminine pronouns (he/him, she/her), so intentionally bringing in the more esoteric pronouns like ze/zir is a bit of a red herring.

Seems to me that you're cherry-picking and distorting stuff to fit your views here.

ETA: I think it's worth reading the Executive Summary of the More In Common survey:

The current research suggests that colleges and universities struggle to uphold freedom of expression, but not because support for free speech as a principle has waned. Rather, students are weighing a competing value: the extent to which campus discourse should be influenced by its potential impact on historically marginalized groups. Cancel culture appears to be one manifestation of the drive to protect already marginalized individuals from further hurt and offense. This report suggests, however, that hurt and offense occur with alarming frequency. In other words, higher education struggles to foster inclusion while simultaneously upholding freedom of expression. Both freedom of expression and inclusion are critical to an effective learning environment. We suggest, therefore, that the public discourse shift away from pitting these as competing ideals. In our Recommendations (p. 68), we outline how colleges and universities can play a critical role in integrating divergent perspectives and mitigating the toxic conflict that stems from these competing worldviews.

 

[Pommer]

I don't think so at all. I think they bring up legitimate questions. Why are they controversial? Why do they need a comeuppance? Is it universal? These are legitimate conversations to see who exactly is involved and who is trying to silence who.

These threads are mostly gossip, the marketplace-of-ideas will always generate such controversies and while the resultant threads can be entertaining and somewhat informative they’re mostly empty bloviating and opinionating.

 

[Paidiske]

But his twitter feed isn't a "professional environment" is it?

Anybody who imagines that their online behaviour isn't part of their professional environment is woefully misinformed. I mean, most professional codes of conduct will specifically include it. It's not some secret or surprise to find out that how you conduct yourself online matters.

Had he been saying those things to a person laying down on a couch in his office, then that would be one thing.

But can anyone really imagine that how he conducts himself online, especially with the heightened profile he has, doesn't impact on anybody who might be seeing him in that professional capacity?

...but, it also raises the question, is "walking on eggshells around these specific groups" being conflated for professional conduct?

Come on. What he's reported as saying goes far beyond not "walking on eggshells."

And would other psychologists be getting held to the same standards if they targeted groups that conservatives tend to be fond of?

I don't know about other psychologists in Canada; but as I said, I'd expect to be pulled up for this behaviour, and I don't have a profile anything like Jordan Peterson's, so it just doesn't seem outrageous to me at all.

 

[timothyu]

This reminds me of when Jesus called people/priests whitewashed tombs, serpents and a brood of vipers. Of course the so called governing body cracked down on Him and even had Him cancelled, but funnily enough they only thought (mistakenly) they were a governing body, setting themselves up as God and just as in this case, protecting themselves and their power.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Charter of Rights for one.

CCF granted intervenor status in Dr. Jordan Peterson freedom of expression dispute with College of Psychologists - Canadian Constitution Foundation

TORONTO: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has been granted intervenor status in the legal dispute between Canadian psychologist, author and media

theccf.ca

“The point the CCF wants to make in our intervention is that it doesn’t matter whether you like or dislike what Dr. Peterson says. It’s about whether his statements can be sanctioned by a professional regulator when they realistically have nothing to do with the practice of psychology and the complaints were brought by members of the public who basically just don’t like Dr Peterson. We say that granting such an expansive power to regulate the speech of their members to the College of Psychologists would violate the Charter protected right to free expression.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

... the College of Psychologists would violate the Charter protected right to free expression.”

To the extent that I understand Canadian law (not much), I think the Charter (like the US Constitution) applies only to actions by the government, so it's irrelevant in this case.

These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The wording of the question isn't in the article, but based on how it's presented, this was about intentional misgendering. In other words, if someone asks you to call them a certain thing, and you insist on calling them something else. I would say that it's debatable whether or not that should be considered a form of hate speech, but given the current attitudes towards transgender people in the US, you can make a strong argument for it. The question also explicitly only discussed masculine/feminine pronouns (he/him, she/her), so intentionally bringing in the more esoteric pronouns like ze/zir is a bit of a red herring.

Seems to me that you're cherry-picking and distorting stuff to fit your views here.

Again, it's not cherry picking, there are surveys, polling data, university handbooks, numerous protests...

These aren't "my views" in question, these are the view that these young people (colleges they're going to) are expressing.

They're asking for Ze/Zir to be respected and validated, aren't they? The very fact that you see my citing that specific example as cherry picking and a red herring is an indirect acknowledgement that you think it's "silly" as well, correct? Otherwise you wouldn't be calling me out for zeroing in on that particular one. You might as well have just said "well sure it sounds ridiculous when you focus on the stupid sounding one".


Here's another example:

Saskatchewan teens walk out of class to protest pronoun policy

With many wearing flags and waving signs, students walked out of class Tuesday afternoon to show their frustration and displeasure with the government...

www.ckom.com

Students did a walk-out to protest a provincial bill suggesting that parents have to be kept in the loop if children under 12 wish to change their gender.

As a sidebar, it would seem that even people participating are having a hard time keeping the terms and labels straight in their pursuit of checking off as many boxes as they can for "cred".

The person they interviewed (who changed their name to Salem)
identifies as pansexual, trans and asexual.

Pansexual: Pansexuality is sexual attraction towards people of all genders, or regardless of their sex or gender identity.
Asexual: Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.

So they're sexually attracted to everybody...and also sexually attracted to nobody. Hmmm

Seems like those would be mutually exclusive...

ETA: I think it's worth reading the Executive Summary of the More In Common survey:

The executive summary seems to harbor self-contradicting statements.

- The current research suggests that colleges and universities struggle to uphold freedom of expression, but not because support for free speech as a principle has waned. Rather, students are weighing a competing value: the extent to which campus discourse should be influenced by its potential impact on historically marginalized groups. Cancel culture appears to be one manifestation of the drive to protect already marginalized individuals from further hurt and offense.


- Both freedom of expression and inclusion are critical to an effective learning environment. We suggest, therefore, that the public discourse shift away from pitting these as competing ideals. In our Recommendations (p. 68), we outline how colleges and universities can play a critical role in integrating divergent perspectives and mitigating the toxic conflict that stems from these competing worldviews.


It sounds like they're trying to have it both ways here. Limiting a principle in the name of a countervailing interest IS a waning of said principle.

Freedom of speech and "risk of causing discomfort with discourse" is a zero sum game. Meaning any move, even the slightest move in the direction of "you could say 3 things before, but now you can't" is a waning of the principle.


The kind of loaded language they're using here reminds me of a funny line from the movie Spinal Tap (for those who have seen it)

Marty Di Bergi: "The band used to sell out 10,000 and 15,000 seat arenas, on this latest tour, they're in 1,500 and 2,000 seat arenas, do you think band's popularity is in decline?"

Their band manager: "No no no no...I don't think its that the band's popularity is in decline at all, I think it's just that band's appeal has become more selective"

 

[Carl Emerson]

To the extent that I understand Canadian law (not much), I think the Charter (like the US Constitution) applies only to actions by the government, so it's irrelevant in this case.

These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts.

Some would say that in greater life he is representing psychologists.

I had a psychiatrist friend who published a paper on the spiritual aspects of some mental conditions and was de-registered for it.

 

[timothyu]

I had a psychiatrist friend who published a paper on the spiritual aspects of some mental conditions and was de-registered for it.

Upset the temple did he.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Upset the temple did he.

Appealed to a higher court and won...

But some Christian Psychiatrists are leaving the profession so they can legitimately deal with the spiritual issues a they arise.

 

[Larniavc]

Is that standard applied universally?

Yes. It is not based on terms of employment, it is based on terms of ethical practice.

For example. I belong to the BABCP in the UK

BABCP – British Association for Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapies

A multi-disciplinary interest group for people involved in the practice and theory of behavioural and cognitive psychotherapy.

www.babcp.com

So anyone who employees me knows that I at least meet the minimum standards of practice, supervision and training. To be able to be a part of this governing body I need to submit to ethical rules quite apart from those implemented by my employer. Putting these letter on my resume lets any potential employer know that I follow the rules laid out by our Charter.

Were I to try to apply for a job and I did not have these professional credentials questions would be raised as my level of competence would be unverified. I imagine this is the same as for doctors, solicitors etc.

So; if you want to practice and enjoy the renumeration and status that a professional job brings you have to agree to behave in a certain way. Dr Peterson knows all of this and any decision to not follow the rules and subsequent consequences is entirely on him.