Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

So per the examples I provided earlier (involving two high ranking psychologists in the US, two people who have won the APA lifetime achievement awards for contributions to the field)

Would you say that publicly suggesting that people voting for a particular party is likened to a cult, or that people who favor low taxes and gun rights are merely just unaware unconscious racists and then use terms like "insidious underbelly of American politics" to describe them?

Or would that be "crossing some lines"?

Because that's what those two gentleman said, and people (who are of the ilk that cheered Peterson getting punished) applauded their commentary...so much so, that it got picked up and published by the NY Times.


So, if the standard is that a psychologist/therapist should conduct themselves in such a way that they shouldn't say things that would make people feel uncomfortable in coming to them for help, the psychologists who say insulting things about conservatives and religious people would be just as "out of line" as Peterson then, correct? (for instance, when Steven Pinker discusses religion and says it's on par with astrology or alchemy...that could certainly be considered as offensive to some people...enough that they wouldn't want to confide in him, correct?)

Because what I tend to see is a bit of a double standard.

When conservative people in the soft sciences (what few exist) say things that offend liberal sensibilities, it's labelled as "dangerous speech" and people are calling for punitive actions and saying need to be more inclusive.

When progressive people in the soft sciences (which are most of them) say things that offend conservative sensibilities, it gets labelled as "harsh, uncomfortable truths, but it need to be said".

Thus the reason why a Jordan Peterson statement about "nonbinary narcissism" is met with scolding derision, but Robin DiAngelo can talk about "white fragility" and it's celebrated as "an uncomfortable thing that needed to be said"


I want to make sure this isn't a case where the perception is "this group has to be met with nothing but the highest level of sensitivity, but this other group needs to be confronted in direct "no punches pulled" terms for their own good" (and having that standard drawn down political lines)

 

[Bradskii]

...but I think we, as a society, have to draw a line of distinction between "protecting the rights & well-being of vulnerable people" and "making rules that dictate...

...that if you're a member of a professional organisation and you advertise that fact, then you will be brought to book if you make statements as a member of that organisation that brings it into dispute.

If Peterson wants to solve this problem, then he can resign from the organisation. Then he's free to make all the moronic statements he likes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...that if you're a member of a professional organisation and you advertise that fact, then you will be brought to book if you make statements as a member of that organisation that brings it into dispute.

If Peterson wants to solve this problem, then he can resign from the organisation. Then he's free to make all the moronic statements he likes.

At a fundamental level, we don't disagree on that point.

But it's not unreasonable to point out when there's two sets of rules (partially reinforced by government bodies) on the topic of whether or not it's okay to offend people.

With the money Jordan Peterson makes from his other endeavors, and the fact that he hasn't actually engaged in private practice therapy since 2007, I don't know why he cares so much about keeping his license. I certainly wouldn't, but maybe he views that as his "hill to die on"
(as I noted earlier, I don't have a ton of respect for his profession anyway, I think it's a field that produces people with an inflated sense of self-importance based on a piece of paper they can frame on their wall, but at its core, is a subjective opinion based field that masquerades as a science despite meeting none of the criteria)

Nevertheless. If there's a framework within the profession (that's getting treated by the government as if it was on par with science and medicine) that's dictating that it's okay to offend group A (because it's a harsh reality and they need to hear it), but not okay to offend group B (because we see them as a victim class, so they're to handled with kid gloves), then that's a problem.


I posted the examples before of other high profile psychologists saying insulting "talking down to"-style comments about groups that are allied with conservatives, if that's fair game within the field, then so should be Peterson's comments.

"if you vote for conservatives because you think you like their policies on guns and taxes...it's actually just because you're a racist and part of the underbelly of American politics, you just don't know it because you're too stupid to realize your own biases" is every bit as insulting and off-putting as Peterson's comments about a plus-sized model on the cover of sports illustrated.

 

[Bradskii]

At a fundamental level, we don't disagree on that point.

But it's not unreasonable to point out when there's two sets of rules (partially reinforced by government bodies) on the topic of whether or not it's okay to offend people.

I've only got the one.

 

[Larniavc]

Or would that be "crossing some lines"?

No. The targets are not a protected protected categories.

But you know all of this already. Race, gender, religion etc are protected categories. You've been here a long time. You already know this.

 

[Larniavc]

partially reinforced by government bodies

They are not government bodies.

Look. You are an intelligent person who's post I read with interest as they are nearly always thoughtful and well observed. This apparent inability to grasp this situation is out of character and frankly baffling.

tl;dr you join a club you abide by the rules or you get sanctioned. That's really all there is to it.

 

[rjs330]

No. The targets are not a protected protected categories.

But you know all of this already. Race, gender, religion etc are protected categories. You've been here a long time. You already know this.

Protected doesn't mean protected from criticism. It means protected from.discrimination. The protection des not extend to the individual person in their everyday lives. If I cut in front of you in a line and you are trans I can't be charged with discrimination. If I criticize the behaviors or opinions of a trans person I shouldn't be able to be charged with discriminatory behaviors.

It's patently ridiculous to consider that because you belong to a protected class you can't be spoken bad about.

That is messed up.

 

[rjs330]

They are not government bodies.

Look. You are an intelligent person who's post I read with interest as they are nearly always thoughtful and well observed. This apparent inability to grasp this situation is out of character and frankly baffling.

tl;dr you join a club you abide by the rules or you get sanctioned. That's really all there is to it.

I do.agree that you have to abide by the rules of the group or you can't be part of the group. It does make sense. Private entities are different.

However the rules really should be enforced unilaterally. If they are not then they really aren't a rule. It's completely hypocritical and one deserves the scorn they may receive for not being consistent with your enforcement of the rule.

Qe inherently understand this. We don't want to be treated more harshly for doing something while the other guy feta a pass for doing the same.thing. it upsets our sense of justice and fairness.

 

[Larniavc]

It's patently ridiculous to consider that because you belong to a protected class you can't be spoken bad about.

If you can’t see the difference after I’ve explained it already I think we just agree to disagree?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They are not government bodies.

Look. You are an intelligent person who's post I read with interest as they are nearly always thoughtful and well observed. This apparent inability to grasp this situation is out of character and frankly baffling.

tl;dr you join a club you abide by the rules or you get sanctioned. That's really all there is to it.

I understand they're not government bodies themselves, when I say partially reinforced by government bodies, I mean that as "you need their blessing before the government allows you to legally practice your trade."

If you look at their website, that applies here. Under Ontario law, you can't legally call yourself certain job titles within the field, or provide those services, unless you're approved and licensed by the private organization in question, and doing so comes with legal consequences.

In the US, we'd call that a "State Actor", meaning a certain regulatory aspect has been delegated to a private entity for a task that would normally be handled by a government entity.

In the US, under the "State Action Doctrine" of the constitution, state actors, when performing said state actions, are constrained to the same limitations the government would be if they were doing it themselves. Meaning, if the US government, under the first amendment (or State government under the fourteenth) wouldn't be allowed to punish you or prohibit you from applying your trade for saying XYZ, then neither can the private entity they've delegated that regulatory task to.

Now, if Ontario didn't have a law saying "you need this private entity's license to do this kind of work", and the organization in question's scope was relegated to that of what the "Better Business Bureau" does here in the US (where they give ratings and stamps of approval that people often look to, and put stock in, but can't actually prevent you from doing a job...they can just give you a poor rating), then there'd be no conflict.

However, I realize this is Canada we're talking about, and it's likely that their rules are not the same on such matters.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No. The targets are not a protected protected categories.

But you know all of this already. Race, gender, religion etc are protected categories. You've been here a long time. You already know this.

For the 4 attacks he made

One calling a politician arrogant and a narcissist for demanding they/them pronouns
One insulting the doctor who performed Ellen/Elliot Page's top surgery
One calling Justin Trudeau a name
One saying that sports illustrated using a overweight model wasn't beautiful

Which is of these violates a protected class rule? Protected class provisions are aimed at preventing educational/occupational/treatment/housing discrimination...they're not aimed at "making sure nobody every says any thing that hurts their feelings"


Also keeping in mind, in the context of mental health discussions, pointing out that a condition is indeed a condition, is not violating a protected class rule.

For instance, mental disabilities are a protected class here in the US. However, a clinician saying "people with condition XYZ can be prone to violent outbursts and be dangerous" isn't violating a protected class rule (even if it may hurt the feelings of people who have the condition in question)

The examples I cited before of psychologists making statements about people in the protected classes
Steven Pinker equating religious beliefs with "cult-like" behavior and astrology... Religion's a protected class, Pinker's statement doesn't violate any rules. He's stating his professional opinion.

Robin DiAngelo going on speaking tours talking about "white fragility"... Race is a protected class, she goes pretty hard on white people. However, her statements don't violate any rules.

The moment they those categories to decide who to hire, or who they're willing to rent their house to, or who they will or won't treat , then they've violated the rules.

 

[Larniavc]

Which is of these violates a protected class rule?

In terms of free speech in the US none at all. But again you know this so I really don’t get what you think that has to do with breaking g professional codes of conduct he previously agreed to follow.

I’m doing the best I can to assume you’re not deliberately being obtuse but it’s getting harder and harder.

Freedom of Speech from 1A has nothing to do with breaches in professional conduct. You know this!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In terms of free speech in the US none at all. But again you know this so I really don’t get what you think that has to do with breaking g professional codes of conduct he previously agreed to follow.

I’m doing the best I can to assume you’re not deliberately being obtuse but it’s getting harder and harder.

Freedom of Speech from 1A has nothing to do with breaches in professional conduct. You know this!

Did you see my post right before that one?

reposting here
**********************************************************************************************
I understand they're not government bodies themselves, when I say partially reinforced by government bodies, I mean that as "you need their blessing before the government allows you to legally practice your trade."

If you look at their website, that applies here. Under Ontario law, you can't legally call yourself certain job titles within the field, or provide those services, unless you're approved and licensed by the private organization in question, and doing so comes with legal consequences.

In the US, we'd call that a "State Actor", meaning a certain regulatory aspect has been delegated to a private entity for a task that would normally be handled by a government entity.

In the US, under the "State Action Doctrine" of the constitution, state actors, when performing said state actions, are constrained to the same limitations the government would be if they were doing it themselves. Meaning, if the US government, under the first amendment (or State government under the fourteenth) wouldn't be allowed to punish you or prohibit you from applying your trade for saying XYZ, then neither can the private entity they've delegated that regulatory task to.

Now, if Ontario didn't have a law saying "you need this private entity's license to do this kind of work", and the organization in question's scope was relegated to that of what the "Better Business Bureau" does here in the US (where they give ratings and stamps of approval that people often look to, and put stock in, but can't actually prevent you from doing a job...they can just give you a poor rating), then there'd be no conflict.

However, I realize this is Canada we're talking about, and it's likely that their rules are not the same on such matters.
**************************************************************************************************


The slightly more succinct version is, if the government delegates to me, as a private entity, the task of deciding whether or not you can you can professionally apply your trade (Via a law that says "you must have the Rob stamp of approval in order do X"), then when working in that capacity, I wouldn't be allowed to overstep any of the limitations the government would be constrained by if they were just issuing the licenses themselves.


IE: If the government wouldn't be allowed to say "if you post on facebook that you think fat people are ugly, you're not allowed to be an XYZ", then a private entity who they task with deciding who's legally allowed to be an XYZ wouldn't be allowed to make such a rule either.

But then I also noted that it's Canada and not the US, so their laws could be different with regards to private entities handling occupational regulatory matters.

 

[rjs330]

If you can’t see the difference after I’ve explained it already I think we just agree to disagree?

Sure, but then I'm not sure what protected class has to do with this. I think I agreed with you about 1st Ammendment. But what protected classes have to.do.witg anything I do t know. Cause no discrimination was involved.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As I explained (but people keep conveniently side-stepping the point and snipping the small parts of my post that allow them reply with "this isn't the government censoring speech, how do you not see that?")

The issue isn't that a private trade organization/collective has codes of ethics and conduct that are stricter than what the government imposes. That part's absolutely fine. For instance, if you want to be a member of some private "American Animal Welfare Workers" independent trade group, you have to follow their "No Steak Dinners" rule, and they can boot you if they catch you violating that...that's all fine and dandy.



The point of contention is that the government (via provincial law, in this case) has empowered a private trade organization with getting to play judge & jury for who gets to actually be a member of that trade, much more broadly.


For those on the farther left end of the spectrum who still aren't grasping why this is a concern, I can give a hypothetical inverse example that would be the exact same thing, just going in the other direction... and then maybe it'll "click" for them.



Here is a real industry organization:

AAPLOG - American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs

We are the largest organization of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists in the world. Our Mission is to encourage and equip medical practitioners to provide an evidence-based rationale for defending the lives of both the pregnant mother and her unborn child.

aaplog.org

They're called the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs

Some of the guidelines in order to be a member (in good standing) and be a AAPLOG-certified/approved OBGYN
-must share the view that human life begins at fertilization and that the lives of pre-born children should be protected
-must inform and enable the public to better understand the medical and biological fact that life begins at fertilization and that the willful destruction of innocent human lives has no place in the practice of medicine
-must counsel their patients on the adverse effects of abortion on women, and to be able to offer them healthier and more life-affirming options

Right now, OBGYNs can choose to either be, or not be, a member of this collective, but it ultimately has no bearing on whether or not they can actually be an OBGYN or apply their trade.


Now, imagine if the state of Florida or Texas passed a bill that dictated "AAPLOG is now the entity in charge of certification decisions for OBGYNs, in order to apply for a license to practice, or even legally call yourself an OBGYN in the state, you must be approved and certified by AAPLOG, and if your AAPLOG certification gets suspended, so shall be your license, until you go through the AAPLOG reeducation seminar and get your certification from them reinstated"

That would present a major issue, yes? Doubly so if they were the sole discretionary body in the state and there were no other alternative pathways to certification and licensure.



In many ways, the conflicts that arise from this share a few similarities with conflicts of interest that many voiced concerns over when courts were mandating that people join Alcoholics Anonymous/12-step (without giving any other alternative options). While it wasn't the courts/governments directly overstepping the 1st amendment explicitly saying "you have to believe in a higher power!", they were delegating a task to a private group (that did make people engage in that) and where sign-off from said group was required in order for a person to be able to get their driver's license back.

 

[rjs330]

As I explained (but people keep conveniently side-stepping the point and snipping the small parts of my post that allow them reply with "this isn't the government censoring speech, how do you not see that?")

The issue isn't that a private trade organization/collective has codes of ethics and conduct that are stricter than what the government imposes. That part's absolutely fine. For instance, if you want to be a member of some private "American Animal Welfare Workers" independent trade group, you have to follow their "No Steak Dinners" rule, and they can boot you if they catch you violating that...that's all fine and dandy.



The point of contention is that the government (via provincial law, in this case) has empowered a private trade organization with getting to play judge & jury for who gets to actually be a member of that trade, much more broadly.


For those on the farther left end of the spectrum who still aren't grasping why this is a concern, I can give a hypothetical inverse example that would be the exact same thing, just going in the other direction... and then maybe it'll "click" for them.



Here is a real industry organization:

AAPLOG - American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs

We are the largest organization of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists in the world. Our Mission is to encourage and equip medical practitioners to provide an evidence-based rationale for defending the lives of both the pregnant mother and her unborn child.

aaplog.org

They're called the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs

Some of the guidelines in order to be a member (in good standing) and be a AAPLOG-certified/approved OBGYN
-must share the view that human life begins at fertilization and that the lives of pre-born children should be protected
-must inform and enable the public to better understand the medical and biological fact that life begins at fertilization and that the willful destruction of innocent human lives has no place in the practice of medicine
-must counsel their patients on the adverse effects of abortion on women, and to be able to offer them healthier and more life-affirming options

Right now, OBGYNs can choose to either be, or not be, a member of this collective, but it ultimately has no bearing on whether or not they can actually be an OBGYN or apply their trade.


Now, imagine if the state of Florida or Texas passed a bill that dictated "AAPLOG is now the entity in charge of certification decisions for OBGYNs, in order to apply for a license to practice, or even legally call yourself an OBGYN in the state, you must be approved and certified by AAPLOG, and if your AAPLOG certification gets suspended, so shall be your license, until you go through the AAPLOG reeducation seminar and get your certification from them reinstated"

That would present a major issue, yes? Doubly so if they were the sole discretionary body in the state and there were no other alternative pathways to certification and licensure.



In many ways, the conflicts that arise from this share a few similarities with conflicts of interest that many voiced concerns over when courts were mandating that people join Alcoholics Anonymous/12-step (without giving any other alternative options). While it wasn't the courts/governments directly overstepping the 1st amendment explicitly saying "you have to believe in a higher power!", they were delegating a task to a private group (that did make people engage in that) and where sign-off from said group was required in order for a person to be able to get their driver's license back.

I really appreciate all your points and they make perfect sense. However I will be surprised if those who you are addressing will accept anything you have to say as valid. You see so many dislike Peterson so much due to his stance on some subjects that they just want bad things to happen to him for it.

And no amount of logic will give them pause. I've actually been seriously thinking about just leaving this forum. I have never seen any amount of debate ever give anyone pause on their stances and it's seriously been just a waste of time. And I wonder if all your wonderful logic and arguments are falling on the deaf ears of those who want Jordan to pay.

That really seems to be tge way if the left anymore. If you disagree you will be made to oay and will be silenced at all costs.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I really appreciate all your points and they make perfect sense. However I will be surprised if those who you are addressing will accept anything you have to say as valid. You see so many dislike Peterson so much due to his stance on some subjects that they just want bad things to happen to him for it.

And no amount of logic will give them pause. I've actually been seriously thinking about just leaving this forum. I have never seen any amount of debate ever give anyone pause on their stances and it's seriously been just a waste of time. And I wonder if all your wonderful logic and arguments are falling on the deaf ears of those who want Jordan to pay.

That really seems to be tge way if the left anymore. If you disagree you will be made to oay and will be silenced at all costs.

Rightly or wrongly I have hope that the readers will appreciate what is going on - my posts are for them more than the protagonists...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I really appreciate all your points and they make perfect sense. However I will be surprised if those who you are addressing will accept anything you have to say as valid. You see so many dislike Peterson so much due to his stance on some subjects that they just want bad things to happen to him for it.

And no amount of logic will give them pause. I've actually been seriously thinking about just leaving this forum. I have never seen any amount of debate ever give anyone pause on their stances and it's seriously been just a waste of time. And I wonder if all your wonderful logic and arguments are falling on the deaf ears of those who want Jordan to pay.

That really seems to be tge way if the left anymore. If you disagree you will be made to oay and will be silenced at all costs.

Interestingly enough, it does appear that Canada does have the equivalent of the US State Action doctrine I was referring to.

Charterpedia - Section 32(1) – Application of the Charter

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site

www.justice.gc.ca

Section 32(1) is drafted in a broad manner “to prevent Parliament, the legislatures, and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments from avoiding their Charter obligations by conferring certain of their legislative responsibilities or powers on other entities that are not ordinarily subject to the Charter”

5. Administrative decision-making​

Not every board or tribunal is a government actor. However, where an individual, board or tribunal exercises administrative decision-making authority under a statute, the exercise of discretion must proportionately balance Charter protections – defined as “both the Charter’s guarantees and the foundational values they reflect”


However, their application of the concept is much more vague than ours, and could be interpreted multiple different ways as they don't seem to have cohesive case law on the matter with some rulings going one way, and some going the other.



So where ours is pretty cut & dry "If you're a state actor, you're bound by the same rules as the government when performing that action, regardless of the intent of the government body who delegated that power to you"

Theirs appears to have a slightly different set of goalposts... Theirs seems to suggest that in order to be a violation, there would have to A) be proof that the delegation of power was for the explicit intent of circumnavigating their charter, and B) a judge would have to find the infringement as "unreasonable".

They toss in the subjective words "reasonable" and "relevant" (which, in practical terms, just means "leave it up to the wide-open interpretation of whichever judge happens to be hearing the case")

 

[Paidiske]

The point of contention is that the government (via provincial law, in this case) has empowered a private trade organization with getting to play judge & jury for who gets to actually be a member of that trade, much more broadly.

I'm still struggling to see the problem with the idea that there should be ethical standards for people in professions where there is a massive power gradient with vulnerable people. Sure, you don't want the standards for who can be an [insert profession here] to be arbitrary or unduly restrictive, but you do need some standards, otherwise you end up with cowboys doing immense harm.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm still struggling to see the problem with the idea that there should be ethical standards for people in professions where there is a massive power gradient with vulnerable people. Sure, you don't want the standards for who can be an [insert profession here] to be arbitrary or unduly restrictive, but you do need some standards, otherwise you end up with cowboys doing immense harm.

The issue is that the powers to decide who gets to be a member of that profession (based on ethical standards) are being delegated to a non-government entity, that's not constrained by the same principles as the government, and could have a very subjective view of "ethics"


Like my previous example:

If in the state of Florida, Ron DeSantis and their legislature delegated the responsibility of deciding "who gets to call themselves an OBGYN and practice the trade" to this organization:

Our Mission Statement | AAPLOG - American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians & Gynecologists

Mission & Vision Mission The reason AAPLOG exists is to encourage and equip its members and other concerned medical practitioners to provide an evidence-based rationale for defending the lives of both the pregnant mother and her pre-born child. Vision We aim to make known the evidence-based...

aaplog.org

...and let them apply whatever ethical standards they liked as requirements for a certification, and made said certification a requirement to apply for a state license to practice, that'd be a big issue, right?

People would quickly call that out for what it was...a government body lobbing a bias (they wouldn't normally be allowed to apply directly) over the guardrail to an organization that doesn't have to stay in the same said guardrails they do, as a means of adding a phony layer of separation as a way to say "well, it's not us making doctors espouse pro-life positions, I don't know what you're talking about... it's okay to have standards right??"

Nobody on the left would tolerate that...and rightfully so. The demand would be "hey, you either get AAPLOG to change their ethics code to match what the government's limitations are, or you give that certification authority to another more neutral organization"


It's fine for industries to have standards, but the standards have to be applied equally, and not with the aims of "we want to make sure this field is comprised of only people who agree with us on political/social issues...or if they disagree, they have keep it to themselves and not bluntly express it like the people on our side of the fence are afforded the luxury of doing"

Had a well-known progressive Canadian psychologist said "white evangelicals are arrogant" or "the pro-life position is a delusion" or "Ted Cruz is a prig", would that have drawn a threat of punitive action from that particular panel?