The Verbal Eunuch
The Verbal Eunuch
the story of Dr. Jordan Peterson and his fight for freedom of conscience
“Finally, even were we to accept the overbroad statutory “public interest” objectives which are urged by the LSUC and adopted by the majority, it would not follow that accrediting TWU is against the public interest, so understood. As we discuss in our reasons in Law Society of B.C. (at paras. 324-36), the public interest in fostering a liberal, pluralist society is served by accommodating religious freedom. The unequal access resulting from the Covenant is a function not of condonation of discrimination, but of accommodating religious freedom, which freedom allows religious communities to flourish and thereby promotes diversity and pluralism in the public life of our communities.”—Cote and Brown JJ (dissenting) in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2018] 2 SCR 453
Finding that the LSUC decision [to deny accreditation to the TWU Law School with a mandatory covenant] unjustifiably limits the TWU community’s section 2(a) Charter rights, the dissenting Justices in the Trinity Western University case did NOT think the non-specific public interest warranted limitation of section 2(a) Charter rights, freedom of conscience and religion1. The Charterpedia states that section 2 exists to protect the fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada agreed in 2018 that a professional regulatory body could limit or violate its members’ section 2 Charter rights for the public interest as they (majority) describe it. On Wednesday 23 August 2023 Charter rights for licensed professionals took another blow. Justice Schabas wrote in his decision, Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685, in my view, the Decision of the ICRC [to order Peterson to attend mandatory social media training for an indefinite period of time, with his ongoing licensure to be contingent on coach’s assessment of his performance] adequately and reasonably considered Dr. Peterson’s statements in the context of the College’s statutory mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest. You can download both the Schabas Decision and the ICRC paperwork + decision together with Peterson’s response below.
The offense as stated by the College of Psychologists of Ontario: “That I may have lacked professionalism in public statements made on social media and during a January 25, 2022 podcast appearance.”
Let’s look at that statutory mandate, shall we? First all, what is the College of Psychologists of Ontario? It’s not a school, or an actual college. The College exists under the mandate of the Psychology Act of 1991, as a council of 10 psychology professionals from across the province, most appointed by the Lt Governor and the balance elected by the voting members of the College. The Council meets quarterly in public sessions. The Council oversees entry to practise requirements, competency, ongoing professional development, as well and ethics and practise behaviour monitoring and investigations.
To have a professional license is not a right it is a sacred solemn privilege, like the military has a rigid unforgiving structure to control soldiers, so to do professions — the more important and sacred that professional responsibility, the more unforgiving the structure of control for membership, and the more limits to expression. This has always been true, the internet has not made professional regulation any less complex and coercive. There is no freedom like you might think in a licensed professional atmosphere. Professionals are the designated drivers of the society. Members of the CPO must comply with legislation, with provincial regulatory Standards of Practise (SOP), and with the federal Code of Conduct. The statute governing the CPO, The Psychology Act, remains current until next year, when the CPO becomes the College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario, under the Psychology and Applied Behaviour Analysis Act.
The College of Psychologists of Ontario Standards of Conduct states that members who provide information, advice or comment to the public via any medium must take precautions to ensure that:
the statements are accurate and supportable based on current professional literature2 or research;
the statements are consistent with the professional standards, policies and ethics currently adopted by the College; and
it would reasonably be expected that an individual member of the public receiving the information would understand that these statements are for information only, that a professional relationship has not been established, and that there is no intent to provide professional services to the individual.3
The Canadian Psychologists Association Code of Conduct delineates four principles: 1. Respect for the Dignity of People and Persons, 2. Responsible Caring, 3. Integrity in Relationship, 3. Responsibility to Society. The first principle has an emphasis on inherent worth, non-discrimination, moral rights, distributive, social and natural justice, [and] generally should be given the highest weight, except in circumstances in which there is a clear and imminent danger of bodily harm to someone.
How could anyone, let alone a clinical psychologist, affirm or adhere to the principle of respect for dignity of people or persons, responsible caring, integrity of relationship whilst promoting a known and widely condoned falsehood? Obesity is not beautiful, humans are not sequential hermaphrodites, young gay humans subjecting themselves to unnecessary and barbaric body modification surgeries so they can remain socially acceptable (to themselves and others around them) is not affirming or humane. Whilst I do cringe at Peterson’s angry and inflamed delivery, I certainly do understand it and recognise my own past and present assholery in his spicy and pithy comebacks. That’s irrelevant to the present matter and still worth stating out loud that social media behaviour reflects the connection and conflict one has with oneself internally and the world at large. We have a poor understanding of social brain behaviour. We have a deliberate stubbornness when it comes to the profound brain-altering effect of social media platforms such as Twitter.
Peterson maybe have acted out at times, nonetheless he expressed himself in a manner which searches for the attainment of truth — a principle value expressed in Canada’s Charter of Rights. If someone who exhibits psychological and emotional disturbances misrepresents themselves, ie. expresses an obvious untrue statement about themselves, does a psychologist have to affirm that untrue statement? Why?
Why must Peterson or the rest of us lose our section 2 rights to affirm an obvious cognitive distortion that has become an immutable trait and fundamental characteristic listed in the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code? How can something untrue be an immutable trait that we all must respect?4
In An Examination of the Duty to Accommodate in the Canadian Human Rights Context, Robert Mason, Julia Nicol, and Julian Walker cite T.A. v. Manitoba, the concept of gender identity … needs to be interpreted broadly and expansively. In an absolutely Trudeau Regime amateurish and d1ckbag move, the legislative paper provides no analysis for the obvious sex versus gender rights conflict created by adding gender identity + gender expression into section 2 of The Human Rights Act. The Trudeau Regime dropped a human rights jurisprudence bomb on the country and now just pretend nothing is imploding and exploding — absolutely zero leadership, no solution-oriented thinking, only jizzing over imagined problems and simply denying real problems and rights conflicts on a collective and institutional scale. You know those movies where the bumbling idiot pretended he knew what he was doing and screwed sh1t up and then when was asked to fix it said he had no ideas? Yeah, doesn’t the Trudeau Regime remind you of that guy?
The obvious needs pointing out — why must Peterson consistently single out body positivity and trans celebrities to mock or snipe at, in his bid to attain truthful discourse? Could he find some other less inflammatory method of fighting for truth? How does social media alter the social brain and how does it shift our thought processes? When does social media become a harmful compulsion that obstructs higher thought? I think Peterson is better than this.
What is the public interest, in the context of the statutory mandate of the professional regulation of Clinical Psychologists, that demands one of the top 50 of all time most cited psychologists who has no practise or patients attend ethical breach coaching for an indefinite period of time with either of Erika Abner or Gail Siskind? An argument could be made that coaching with Erika Abner could be in the public interest, I will come back to this in a moment. Let’s go back to Peterson and regulated professionals and the Charter.
When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. This case raises the clash between a regulated clinical psychologist’s right to speak in a certain manner and the regulator’s power to require the member to moderate that speech. — Schabas, Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685, para 1
So that seems uncharacteristically vague and toothless for a judicial decision. In fact I felt irritated reading this ruling because Schabas didn’t satisfy me with his explanation. Even if I disagree with a Justice I can see their reasoning laid out clearly. The Judiciary ought to clarify not confuse. This Decision lacked that neutral clarity one comes to expect from a Justice. The opening lines set the tone in this Decision and maybe they summarise the unnecessary confusion of our time. You can have your Charter Rights but only if you don’t make Big Brother mad, only if we feelz like giving them to you. [Read that sentence in a Golum voice, please] I have felt frustration + despair over what I perceive as apathy + intellectual laziness amongst Canadians. Why don’t we care? Why don’t we want to stop whinging and start mobilising + strategising? I often feel like I am screaming into the void and I talk to a few other like minded Canadians and they resonate. I discovered Eva Chipiuk last week. She founded Empowered Canadians and she held a Twitter Space Thursday evening.
It felt good to share a space with humans who came equipped to intelligently discuss issues important to Canada and to share solutions and brain storm. One thing that emerged from the discussion involved the civil illiteracy of Canadians. I have noticed this in my work studying and challenging GenderWang—Americans and Brits know their civil liberties and Canadians are standing around waiting for sometime to tell them what these are and they swallow whatever kool-aid any loudmouth serves them.
A report recently made cursory news, written by the NB Child and Youth Advocate, a one hundred page document about the parental consent policy, filled with case law citations which provide a look into how decisions get made in Canada. What do most writers choose to do with this report? They talk about the bloke who wrote the report — they focus on him and some stupid sh1t he wrote about the rights of the child and divorcing these from parental control or influence or guardianship. The Child and Youth Advocate presented a report on gender diverse kids in BC, the report used the acronym 2STNBGC and TNC News published an erroneous rage farming piece CBC changes LGBTQIA2S+ acronym to 2STNBGC. The report did provide an explanation for the acronym and those who decided not to read the report just made up their opinion about the report based on a feeling they had.
Opinion opinion opinion and no fact. This feels like I ask you for a burger and you give me a bun with lettuce and tomato and trimmings and no meat. Oh you mean you wanted protein too? Um, yeah that’s what fuels me. We suddenly got to this place in the information media where we feel like opinions are fact. If the GenderWang and Woko Haram make feelings fact, the Oppositional Movements have made opinion fact.
Everyone is full of sh1t and trying to hornswoggle me. That makes me very angry.
Why can’t I just have practical + concrete fact, like in a traditional Judicial Decision? Numbered paragraphs with references I can check myself. Why don’t more independent journalists write like this? Some do, we need more, please. Anyway, I digress. When people don’t have the information and when they only have inflamed opinions on which to base decisions, that is not democracy that is a regime.
So, it has occurred to me that the problems plaguing Canada stem largely from the fact that Canadians have a high level of civil illiteracy — most do not know about the organisation or levels of governance, they do not know how decision get made about important matters. For example, do you know what the College of Psychologists is and how it is formed and who makes decisions? If you think that is democratic, I am sorry to disappoint you! A group of 10 professional psychologists from across the province of Ontario, most of whom the provincial regime appointed via the Lt Governor, (this means the province, likely the Minister of Health) all without a term limitation, have the power to end a career that took a decade or more to build. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Council of Psychologists decided Peterson should face possible loss of license because of tweets he made and because of comments he made on Joe Rogan unless he goes to a professional ethics coach.
Between five and seven members who are elected in accordance with the by-laws by the members of the college. Between five and eight members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who are not, members of the college, members of a college as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or members of a council as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. Two or three members are selected, in accordance with a by-law made under section 11, from among members who are faculty members of a department of psychology of a university in Ontario that is specified in the by-laws. The council elects annually a president and a vice-president from among the members. — Council of the College of Psychologists of Ontario
Can you see how this structure could lend itself to abuse of power during a regime era, such as we currently find ourselves? With the devastating paucity of intellectual honesty + ethics + boldness + responsibility presently in academia and professional cultures generally, I struggle to see how this process can provide Peterson with neutral and impartial due process. I think a carefully selected team of investigators would have to be selected to ensure the public and Peterson a fair and equitable dealing, I don’t see a fair process happening right now.
Can you see how a designated Enemy of the Republic would almost certainly lose in a “due process” mechanism such as this one?
So what about Peterson, himself now? In fact, not only does Peterson have a right as a citizen of Canada to free expression that searches for and promotes attainment of the truth, he has a obligation to engage in it, according to the CPO Standards of Conduct as well as to the CPA Code of Conduct. What happens when the decision-makers of the regulatory body exist within a structure + vision of human rights + human behaviour predicated on a fundamental untruth? How do professionals meet their ethical obligations now, in a climate dominated by authoritarianism and a commitment to ignoring obvious + painful truths? Can you see the impossible situation this puts Peterson in — it is self defeat imposed by a ridiculously delirious administrative executive.
The other part of this issue centres on professional responsibility. How do professionals balance their ethical duty with their right to freedom of conscience and expression? Social media makes it difficult to behave, the built-in incentive structure does not reward behaviour embodying the four guiding principles of Clinical Psychologists mentioned above. Twitter rewards assholery. It teachers the dopamine pathways to derive energy from the negative belligerent connections characterising Twitter engagement. To use the CARE model by Amy Banks, Twitter creates a social atmosphere which places the user in a constant threat-state (not calm), in a state of fluctuation from love bombing to dehumanisation and bullying (not accepted), in a state of isolation, unable to understand or be understood by others (not resonant), in a state of negative compulsion, energised by antagonistic interactions and angry public outbursts (not energised by healthy connection).
Twitter creates a digital terrain that feels like poison to our neural pathways. It distorts our social connection, as has become patently obvious. How much political unrest can we trace to the fact that Twitter creates monsters out of each of us?
I myself admit to falling into the Twitter Trap, and actually I began Twitter over a decade ago simply to blow off steam and have a laugh. Then I used it to have the angries. Something happened and I started changing the way I used Twitter around 2016. Bill C-16 happened. I began to take an interest in following others and developed a following of my own, it became more than a silly wanking game. How do I want to use Twitter, became the question? The answer has changed as I have, as my life has, as my intellectual world has changed, as my political landscape has fractured and shifted. Everyone grapples with the fact that a private off duty activity actually exists in a public square. This describes the challenge of the digital age in a nutshell. Where does private end and public begin? We used to know, now we do not. Private and public have come mean a different thing than they did a decade or two ago. In fact, one could argue that with the Pegasus/NOS Group culture of surveillance, privacy has ceased to exist. Do we live our private lives entirely in public now? Schrödinger’s Privacy.
“Twitter is a mind altering drug”
Still, let us not lose perspective on this. Long before the internet professionals, and civil servants too, grappled with conduct and the limits imposed on lifestyle by professional duty. Anyone who holds a professional license has already agreed to limits on their freedom of expression vis à vis the statutory mandate of the professional regulatory body. Your freedom to express yourself on your break from your nursing shift by slamming down some pints of ale or sucking on a cannabis vape pen will be curtailed by your duty to your nursing licensing body. You cannot exercise your Charter rights to express yourself by consuming alcohol or cannabis whilst on duty or whilst off duty prior to a shift. Your consumption pattern will need strict management in order for you to perform and keep your job.
I regularly find that professionals commit a lapse during a period of personal stress. In those cases we also focus on recognizing and managing sources of stress that might lead to an ethical lapse. — Dr. Erika Abner
It’s widely known that Jordan Peterson experienced a series of personal crises and that he struggled with Benzodiazepines and that struggle nearly cost him his life. Fame consumes—we cannibalise people and call it admiration, we consume them voraciously and think we do them a favour and we think we own them, too. It is a kind of modern slavery, Lady Gaga was right, even though I rolled her eyes when she tweeted that a few years ago. The famous become our pets and dolls and snacks. Humans have limits, including Jordan Peterson. Some kind of professional ethics coaching from a highly skilled and knowledgable individual might not prove the worst thing ever. Maybe most of us could use a lesson in civic behaviour on the internet. Anarchy and freedom mean different things. Anarchy is not free, we can have no freedom with anarchists dominating the conversation. Digital technology bests us, continues to leave us in its dust, human society can only ride as fast as the human social brain can take it!
However, all that said. The conditions of the ICRC Decision—for an indefinite period and licensure outcome contingent on the assessment of the coach—have a highly authoritarian flare to them. Was that honestly the best way to remedy the professional misconduct offense in the least Charter-violating manner?
The once young ambitious lawyer who sought to fight the state and overturn the abortion law in the landmark Morgentaler case has decided that Jordan Peterson’s bold and outspoken views on gender identity and other controversial political issues compromise the profession of clinical psychologist. Is this the best that the lawyer who helped take down Canada’s abortion law in 1988 could give Canadians? Yes, Canadians. I realise it says Peterson V College of Psychologists of Ontario and still I claim this ruling on behalf of all Canadians. Dr. Peterson, I claim this ruling as mine too, because this is my country and this is my democracy we are talking about right now. This is for me and my kids, for my sisters, for their kids.
The Doctor5 is doing this for Canada.
Let’s bring it back to professional responsibility now. Charter rights to free expression in the hospital elevator take a backseat to your professional nursing duty to confidentiality—you cannot trash-talk that annoying lady in 408 whilst you ride the elevator back to your ward from lunch break! Professional duty limits your freedom of expression. This should not surprise anyone. The late Queen, E.R. did not express opinions about things, she felt it her professional duty to remain publicly neutral. Perhaps this style of conducting oneself professionally has come from a particular leadership culture? How do we balance that public service means for all, regardless of political opinion, and that professionals are humans with thoughts and a conscience and vulnerabilities and humanness?
Do we live in such a society where we can contain ourselves primly like QEII, though? I don’t believe we do. Like I wrote earlier, we keep trying to catch up to technology. We haven’t succeed yet. Marshall McLuhan wrote at length about the way the printing press impacted our brain’s way of processing information. No one would doubt the impact that a social media platform such as Twitter has had on the brain. Existing research demonstrates that it does.
That aside. The problem has now become, in Canada, the political decisions of government have become taboo for health professionals to challenge or criticise—face masks and mRNA shots for example, gender identity for another example. What happens when the decision-makers of the regulatory body have decided to support and promote a vision of human rights and human behaviour and even clinical practise predicated on a fundamental untruth? How do professionals meet their ethical obligations now, in a climate dominated by authoritarianism and a commitment to ignoring obvious and painful truths?
So we have a captured administrative executive governing professional culture and the regulation of professions themselves. And we have a polarised and contrived socio-political landscape. And we have technology that we cannot keep up with — all these swirled into a big storm of chaos. Our refusal to understand the social brain and relational neuroscience prevents us from seeing social media use such as Twitter as a drug. Yet, these behaviours—drug use and social media use—occupy and distort the same neural pathway. They each alter our perception. Social media is a mind altering digital drug! Social media incentivises assholery. Social media incentivises dishonesty and it subverts freedom and the capacity for professionals to execute their professional duties. Ultimately any professional has an ethical duty to the profession itself, not to 10 assholes in suits who think they are hot sh1t because they won a political appointment blah blah blah.
Getting back to the Schabas Decision.
First, before I get to the decision, let me recap the situation — context matters immensely to any assessment. Jordan Peterson was just some regular dad guy doing his thing being smart and teaching and therapist-ing and writing and making videos and lectures for men and helping many and sometimes being an asshole.6 Then he decided he would speak out against Bill C-16. Peterson exploded onto the scene.
If he had a following before, he became an instant household name and you said his name in Vancouver and people acted like you are talking about Beelzebub himself or Jesus 2.0. There is very little middle-of-the-road reaction to him in the average Vancouver crowd. We are insufferably regime-woke here in Lotusland. So, anyway, Jordan become famous and I don’t imagine he wanted it, not like that. He had to close his practise. Fame turned his life on its head. Fame is not the privilege we all think it is — fame is like an acid that eats whatever it touches. I recall that some extremist hate-fan doxxed his Toronto home address at one point, around the time extremists doxxed a widowed Margaret Atwood. You can search Jordan Peterson’s name on Twitter or Google and find out any vile number of unpleasant things people, mostly Wokeists, have projected onto him.
Peterson continued his lectures and book events. He gave up his teaching position and became Emeritus. His wife became ill. The trans lobby succeeded in sufficiently dehumanising and demonising Peterson. The mainstream Canadian media, being pro Trudeau and therefore Wokeists, did NOT cast him in a favourable light. He continued touring and speaking and working at a gruelling pace. Peterson attracted mob reactions and demands to cancel him everywhere he went, particularly when he spoke on campuses. He had a tryst with Benzodiazepines which nearly killed him. Benzos are evil, they are very awful and nearly impossible to kick and often not without significant permanent sequelae. Benzos took my mother from me I hate them with every fibre of my being. Jordan went silent for awhile to recover. Bismillah, God returned him to us intellectually intact, though somewhat (understandably obviously) rageful. I may have gotten those details about Peterson out of chronological order, however that’s the story of The Doctor from 2016 to now.
I do not notice a dampening of his sharpness and intellectual prowess in the post Benzo period, I do notice a bit more fragility, I mean fragile like a person who has endured much hardship in a condensed period of time fragile. I mean fragile like the 45 year old patient I once had with end stage high bowel cancer, I was changing his ileostomy bag and wound dressing and he had endured so much medical hardship by that point, that any little thing upset him, I could feel him + I did the dressing change super slow because it seemed to make it less awful. Peterson is a human and he has responded to his life events as a human would. Any one of the challenges he faced would be enough to take most people out and he wrestled all at once. I think this context deeply + intensely important to the case.
Despite cogent exchanges like the one he had with Cathy Newman, despite clearly addressing an unmet need in the general population, people choose to judge Peterson, H index = 59, amongst the top 50 cited psychologists of all time, by the Gerald Butts and E. Page tweets, and the Joe Rogan interview, and whatever stupid thing he may have dropped in some other public interview or event. I notice this trend when it comes to progressive individuals and Jordan Peterson — they cling to his faults and they deliberately ignore his brilliance and his contributions. Peterson will leave you with an intense feeling — you will love him or hate him. However, he does have a measure of self-awareness, as his own response to the College indicates. This passage demonstrates to me a painful level of self awareness.
As I generally feel quite passionately about the topics I am addressing, some of that passion spills into the reading—but, if done so to excess, also risks alienating some of the audience that might otherwise be successfully communicated with. It’s a very narrow pathway to traverse. In any case, several of these articles were read in a tone that might have been sub-optimally emotional (and that possibility was discussed in depth in the aforementioned apologia). I modified my approach, in consequence, when I most recently read my latest article for The Telegraph, reducing the degree to which I used emotion in the reading (attempting genuinely to get the tone right, deciding on an approach akin to “minimum necessary emotion,” which might be the psychological counterpart to the admirable political principle governing the enforcement of policies and laws— “minimum necessary force.” (Jordan Peterson College of Psychologists of Ontario-ICRC Correspondence, p. 39)
So, as in the Doré case, for the ICRC and for the Schabas the contention ought not centre on the fact that he spoke out to promote the search for and attainment of truth in the public square and express displeasure about the issues of gender identity and expression, body positivity, draconian public health restrictions, and the Trudeau Regime’s handling of the Freedom Convoy. The issue at hand, according the adjudicator and the court, centres on the extent of his response, the “excessive vituperation” of Peterson’s tweets and interview dialogue.7 The delivery not the message itself required remediation in the Doré case and it does now in the Peterson case. Any criticism of the state or its policies will be measured against the public’s reasonable expectations of a clinical psychologist’s professionalism. That’s a direct quote from the Doré ruling I only changed the word lawyer to clinical psychologist.
I do agree with Peterson in whole or part in his expressed displeasure in the flagged tweets which I saw. I disagree with his targeting professionals in antagonistic sparring sessions. I disagree generally with the manner in which he targets8 particular individuals or body types. This behaviour does not meet my expectations of a licensed professional. I disagree with speaking about past clients at any time ever unless they consent. Professionals cannot defend themselves against patient complaints in the public forum — it is inappropriate to comment. Professional responsibility to one’s professional code of conduct limits one’s Charter rights to expression. I did not listen to the Joe Rogan interview in its entirety, I cannot comment on what Peterson said and I think my opinion doesn’t matter because a panel of Peterson’s peers decided and it would be arrogant + pointless to devolve into that minutiae. Anyway, I frankly think in Canadian political discourse we overvalue opinion and undervalue factual + analytic discourse. My purpose in this piece is not to judge rather it’s journalistic.
I disagree with Peterson’s use of emotional force, it seems maximal and designed to achieve damage, as opposed to the minimal force he mentions in his own response, see above for the excerpt. I see that behaviour as a contagion though, in the context of Twitter engagement. From my own struggles with Twitter and civility, I see the conundrum of managing emotional force as an inherent challenge of Twitter use — a skill to practise and improve like any other skill one needs in any other game. On some level we can view Twitter engagement as a complex chess game that carries on into perpetuity. How can we make maximising engagement + impressions on Twitter compatible with the public’s reasonable expectation of a clinical psychologist’s professionalism? Because right now I think these two goals incompatible. Social media and the digital revolution perhaps presents us with a unique set of challenges vis à vis professional behaviour and its regulation. I think generally speaking the digital revolution presents us with interesting Charter issues that Canada’s leadership has simply not the intellectual prowess and sharpness and talent to address in the way Canadians require.
The Panopticon has arrived, perhaps?
I really do urge Dr. Peterson to continually take very difficult and very private and public steps to note [his] own errors, to assess them in great detail, and to move forward, properly corrected, toward more effective and less unnecessarily contentious public communication. The ongoing unabated unnecessarily contentious style of his tweets would seem to provide some evidence of remorselessness on the part of Jordan Peterson and I think that perception would be an erroneous one, given what I already wrote about the compelling (as in the brain’s reward system + dopamine pathways) nature of Twitter. I think Erika Abner could only be a positive experience for The Doctor.
However, I disagree with authoritarian nature of the decision by the ICRC and the affirmation by the David Lametti-appointed Schabas to tie professional licensure to this spate of public outbursts, particularly given the unbalanced manner in which the ICRC has chosen not to acknowledge the vexatious nature of the complains — ie claiming to be Peterson’s patients and using the complaints process to engage in political suppression of a politically “dangerous” psychologist. The mechanism in place seems delicate in that it lends itself to judicial activism via subjectivity + bias. Chief Justice Richard Wagner has praised a progressive court, unlike his predecessor, lauded for her judicial philosophy that judges be scrupulously non-partisan and impartial. My concern as a Canadian and one who has had a professional license in the past is that subversion of the complaints process by activists and lobby groups through vexatious emotionally-fuelled complaints compromises democracy—it promotes harsh silencing of voices needed to critique the government its policies. I do not think Canadians receive adequate protection from adjudicators who value feelings and public image over precision and impartial due process.
The ICRC investigated these issues (Ibid, p.12):
Disgraceful, Dishonourable, or Unprofessional Conduct:
Does it appear that Dr. Peterson's Tweets contained in the Registrar's report constitute abuse and/or harassment?
Does it appear that Dr. Peterson's conduct on the Joe Rogan Experience (Episode #1769) and/or his use of Twitter would, having regard to all the circumstances, be reasonably regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional?
Professional Misconduct Regulation: ss.1.2, 1.34
Standards (2017): 2.1, 14.2Provision of Information to the Public:
Does it appear that the information Dr. Peterson shared on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast is accurate and supportable based on current professional literature or research; and is consistent with the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College?
Professional Misconduct Regulation: ss.1.2, 1.34
Standards (2017): 2.1, 6.6
Canadian jurisprudence provides a couple of mechanisms to address a Charter test. The Oakes Test provides a means to measure the constitutional fairness of the state’s objective in a law that infringes on a Charter right. I won’t elaborate on The Oakes test in this essay, since the case does not use that framework for the Peterson Charter test, and I have written about it in the past. The Doré Framework provides an analogous Charter test in the case of an adjudicating body such as The College of Psychologists of Ontario.
The Doré case involves a lawyer who had a case before a Justice and the Justice expressed some personally demeaning and unprofessional things about the lawyer, who wrote an angry letter expressing his criticism at the judge’s unprofessional conduct, he used salty language and went a bit too far. The lawyer filed a complain about the judge and that complaint was addressed. The lawyer was disciplined for his letter and sentenced to a 21 day suspension. He challenged the decision to punish him under a particular section of the professional code. He lost the appeal. The case provided a framework for a Charter test in an adjudication case because the Oakes Tests does not always apply in a case where we consider a decision-making body and not a state legislature.
The issue in the Doré case, as in this case with Peterson versus the CPO, centres on the extent of the expression of displeasure and not on the expression itself. It is not authoritarian expect a measure of civility from our highly skilled and responsible professional class. It is a freedom-loving society that incentivises civility.9 The Doré ruling makes that clear, I urge everyone to read it to gain some awareness. I find Canadians to have a high level civil illiteracy.
Ahem civility means not lying, progressives so don’t get smug you are not civil when you pretend children can have sex changes if you call it gender affirming care or that rape victims are bigots for wanting rape counselling and shelter services free from all males. Just gonna remind you all of that fact. Progressive leaders and activist professionals weaponise civility against the outspoken, in an effort to shush them. It’s a hallmark of abusive narcissists to gaslight you for your reaction to their provocations. Civility does not mean shhh that’s not nice you can’t say that, civility asks can you say that controversial thing people don’t like in non antagonist non inflammatory non euphemistic language so we can all know what we are speaking about? Civility also does not ignore lobbyist corruption of due process. Civility certainly does not mean turning the human rights code into a sword with which to slay your political interlocutors!
Progressive political discourse deliberately injects ambiguity into everything and then cries bigot and white supremacist when critical thinking people get understandably angry in response! Anti-progressive political discourse mirrors this behaviour. The result is a very harsh and corrosive public discourse, where the middle ground, the centrists who critically think and ask thoughtful questions, have their oxygen supply cut off by the loud angry voices on either side. If you imagine society as a bell curve, we now have the tails of the curve dominating discourse + decision-making. That scares me and it should scare you too, reader.
The Doré Framework provided by Justice Abella functions as follows:
Tribunals begin with the expertise of their members and their home statutes
Consider statutory objectives
Ask how the statutory objectives best protect (and perhaps reflect) the Charter value at issue
Adjudicators have deference in making administrative decisions as long as they fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes
On Judicial Review the judge considers the proportionality in the decision to balance Charter rights with a statutory mandate.
How do we apply this to the Peterson case? I will follow the model provided by Justice Abella in her written decision in Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 395 for an analysis below.
The Charter value at issue is section 2, expression has been mentioned and I would argue that thought, belief, opinion, conscience + religion, and association are at issue in anything related to Peterson’s professional licensure adjudication. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association, states the Constitution of Canada.
The statutory mandate at issue for the CPO are the Psychology Act and the CPO Standards of Professional Conduct. Psychology Act, 1991, Ontario Regulation 801/93, Professional Misconduct, 2. Failing to maintain the standards of the profession, 34. Engaging in conduct or performing an act, in the course of practising the profession, that having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. College of Psychologists of Ontario Standards of Professional Conduct, 2017, 1.Compliance with Statutes and Regulations Relevant to the Provision of Psychological Services, 2.1 General Conduct10, 6.6 Provision of Information to the Public11. The Constitutionality of the legislation and standards of conduct is not at issue here, the decision to discipline a member of a professional association lies with the Council’s panel and not the court.
No one disputes the importance of professional discipline to prevent incivility in professions, the Doré ruling asserts. Similarly with the profession of psychologist a expectation of professional demeanour exists. Across the country and the continent similar regulatory bodies have similarly imposing professional standards. Professional have an expectation to be courteous, civil, and act in good faith.
In consideration of the appropriate boundaries of civility we consider the benefit to the professional’s public expression. Again, no one disputes the critical role health care professionals have in openly criticising the policies of the state and the politics governing their professions and practise therein. Proper respect for these expressive rights may involve discipline bodies tolerating a degree of discordant criticism, says the Doré ruling. This does not by any means argue for an unlimited right on the part of lawyers to breach the legitimate public expectation that they will behave with civility, the ruling warns.
How do we balance forceful + open criticism of our public institutions with professional civility?
Does the CPO-ICRC Decision reflect a proportionate application of the mandatory statute Dr. Peterson’s Charter section 2 rights? Abella states in her decision that:
Lawyers potentially face criticisms and pressures on a daily basis. They are expected by the public, on whose behalf they serve, to endure them with civility and dignity. This is not always easy where the lawyer feels he or she has been unfairly provoked, as in this case. But it is precisely when a lawyer’s equilibrium is unduly tested that he or she is particularly called upon to behave with transcendent civility. On the other hand, lawyers should not be expected to behave like verbal eunuchs. They not only have a right to speak their minds freely, they arguably have a duty to do so. But they are constrained by their profession to do so with dignified restraint. — Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 395
I believe the same holds true for psychologists and other licensed professionals in their own professional context. A therapist helps others self regulate and so this seems to be a vital skill to model in the public sphere. Has Peterson adequately modelled the skill of self regulations? No, in my opinion based on his Twitter behaviour he has not. Speaking as a former RN, I would hold myself to very different standards of conduct than my present public social media conduct if I had a professional license to practise anything. I could point to my ways of expression that I would consider disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, I do not meet the bar I would set for myself. I think it a high threshold to meet in this current climate, where we do live in a regime state not a democratic society.
That said, I think the Peterson punishment disproportionate for the misconduct offenses, and I consider the professional atmosphere in Canada as a whole. I see many professionals who do not meet the threshold I would set for professional conduct in public discourse, even social media. It seems like a targeted political act not a professional regulatory decision to treat Peterson the way he has been treated in this process. You are an unserious and amateurish regulatory body if you choose to ignore the mob of hate chasing Peterson. Can we have some adults in the room now?
So, now let’s get to the Schabas Decision, and his own judicial analysis.
The Appeal: Dr. Peterson raises two arguments which, he submits, make the decision unreasonable: (1) that the ICRC failed to conduct an appropriate proportionately-focused balancing of Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression and the statutory objectives of the College as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Doré; and (2) the Decision fails to meet the standard of “justification, transparency and intelligibility” required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Vavilov and is unreasonable having regard to the facts and the legal rights at stake. (Schabas Decision, para 28)
First of all, Schabas decided that the requirements for adjudicators in Vavilov (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 653) do not apply here. Schabas writes that he disagrees that the Decision did not satisfy the requirement standard of reasoning … by failing to engage with Dr. Peterson’s explanation, then goes on to say that it was not necessary to engage the reasoning, ie in order to establish context.
In other words, we have decided that you misspoke by using degrading and demeaning language therefore we decide we do not care about the context or the possibility of vexatious complaints — that’s how I interpret Schabas here, para 68-70. In paragraph 70 Schabas takes issue with the word choice vindictive, a word meaning having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge. Well, how do we describe a past client who files an unwarranted and baseless complain against a professional who appears in the mainstream news, depicted as a white supremacist bigot? Vindictive seems appropriate, does J Schabas have another word choice he would like to propose? Consideration of the professional context seems important.
So Schabas does not see the need for a Vavilov style review of the Decision, he does not see the importance of the adjudicator’s duty to the public and to the member to provide a transparent + neutral + reasonable review of the decision maker’s reasoning. He points to para 83, in which Wagner writes,
The role of courts in these circumstances is to review, and they are, at least as a general rule, to refrain from deciding the issue themselves. Accordingly, a court applying the reasonableness standard does not ask what decision it would have made in place of that of the administrative decision maker, attempt to ascertain the “range” of possible conclusions that would have been open to the decision maker, conduct a de novo analysis or seek to determine the “correct” solution to the problem. — Vavilov ruling
The gist of the Schabas ruling seems that a precision investigation of the facts does not matter because Peterson spoke in a demeaning + undignified manner — Schabas deliberately ignores the obvious problem of failed impartiality. Anyone can see that vexatious nature of many of the complaints made against Peterson. Anyone can see the standard of conduct held as a threshold for professionals depends on who we want to regulate— conservative leaning professionals or progressive professions. The civilly illiterate and reactive Canadian public seem to equate profession conduct standards with a way we can cancel anyone who says stuff that upsets me cuz I disagree. No part of either decision addressed or even made mention of this important fact.
In para 43, Schabas mentions responsibilities as a registered psychologist — he closed his practise and sees no patients. So this means the College worries about itself, as in trust in the profession. Schabas also alludes to the harm cause by Peterson’s comments. What harm? No evidence of harm exists. In paras 46 to 49 Schabas dismisses any claim that Peterson can ever tweet as a private citizen — seeming to imply that at all times when engaging as a private citizen, even private areas where there is much public access, Peterson must at all times hold himself to the standards of the CPO and Professional Misconduct Regulation under the Psychologist Act. This seems severe to me, it seems severe and authoritarian. It seems disproportionate. It seems like judicial activism.
In para 51 Schabas cites Kempling v British Columbia College of Teachers, para 43, When a teacher makes public statements espousing discriminatory views, and when such views are linked to his or her professional position as a teacher, harm to the integrity of the school system is a necessary result. The Kempling case involved a teacher who expressed the sentiment that same sex attraction is mental illness + sinful + repugnant. The implication by comparison being that Peterson committed a offense similar to expressing blatant anti gay rhetoric. Such a severe insinuation warrants a thorough Vavilov-Framework analysis.
In para 52 Schabas mentions Pitter v. College of Nurses of Ontario and Alviano v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5513, the recent case of two RNs who spoke at an anti-mask and anti-(COVID)-vaccine gathering. The College of Nurses ICRC identified certain language that could be considered dangerous information. COVID Vaccine Will Use Experimental Technology and Permanently Alter Your DNA | vaccines with identification capabilities, which can track and manipulate the thoughts, movements and the whereabouts of every human being | They want to give our kids, prophylactically…DNA of abortion materials | Cancer came, actually start to come, after they start vaccinate [sic] our children | This current vaccine is just a RNA vaccine, see and educate yourself what does that mean, how it will change our body, our kids’ body. Our kids will not have kids, therefore the main agenda, Bill Gates…to decrease population, with his wicked rich wife — these are some examples of language identified as dangerous and misleading by Justice O’Brien. Given the mandate of the College of Nurse, the ICRC has cause for concern. Given the statements themselves the College has cause to question the individual’s competency and capacity for judgement vis à vis nursing practise. Someone who thinks the government is tracking us via mRNA vaccines does not exhibit judgement required to practise nursing safely and effectively. Schabas cited the Pitter + Alvano case for comparative analysis. Does the comparison warrant, when it comes to the misconduct offense?
In para 54 Schabas cites the following in his discussion about the private behaviour of professionals violating the core values of professional standards: R. v. Wigglesworth, 1987 CanLII 41 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 541, a case about an RCMP officer who committed a common assault against a member of the public, Sazant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 727, a case involving sexual abuse of 3 boys that occurred over a period of 21 years, Re Cwinn and Law Society of Upper Canada, 1980 CanLII 1694 (ON SC), a case involving a lawyer who trafficked and had sex with a minor and encouraged her to have sex with other minors and was charged and sentenced to 2 years in prison, Adams v. Law Society of Alberta, 2000 ABCA 240, a case about a lawyer who pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor and received a 15 month conditional sentence. None of these cases hardly applied in the Peterson analysis, the comparison is disproportionate, once again.
In para 55 Schabas cites the following to support his claim that health professions recognise limits on free expression to “maintain boundaries of civility” and professionalism: Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Waddell, 2020 ONCPSD 9, a case involving involved inappropriate, crude and unprofessional communications, for an ongoing period of time, including posting identifiable information about a patient on facebook by a physician, Rathe v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2013 ONSC 821, a case about a physician who committed 6 acts of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient, Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Wright, 2018 ONCPSD 19, a case of a physician who preyed upon women online, rapidly sexualized the conversations, engaging in online sexual relationships in a lewd manner.
In para 56 Schabas pays deference to the ICRC of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, deciding that Dr. Peterson’s public statements, insofar as they contained degrading and demeaning language, may be inconsistent with its professional standards and could undermine public trust in the profession. He fails to explain how and these case citations do not offer any insight into Schabas’s reasoning as a decision-maker in this ruling. Yes, the court has a precedence of paying deference to adjudicated and tribunal decisions. However, the purpose of a judiciary review involves precision analysis of that tribunal’s decision, not some progressive opining.
In para 57 Schabas addressed the Charter, writing that the professional standards can limit Peterson’s freedom of expression. Can they limit his freedom of conscience and association? Because I think these Charter section 2 rights all apply to Peterson’s case. How does the court balance professional code of conduct with freedom of conscience? In para 59 Schabas writes that Peterson has a duty to professional standards. Yes, those standards demand a practitioner with a conscience, surely?
conscience: an inner voice viewed the guide to the rightness or wrongness.
The Schabas Decision lacks a Doré and Vavilov analysis of the balance between Peterson’s professional responsibility and his freedom of conscience Charter rights. The College ICRC does not appear to have considered freedom of conscience, just as it failed to consider its duty to the public to guard its complaint process from vexatious and false complaints. Why does the College allow complaints that contain falsehoods to stand? The College’s failure to address the political nature of the complaints and the dishonesty of the complainants — all claimed to be patients of Peterson, who shut dow his practise 6 years ago — does far more damage to the reputation of the profession than anything Peterson has said.
Yes, I think he has crossed the line and yes, I think the College has committed a far more egregious offense AGAINST THE PUBLIC by failing to address to progressive terrorising of professionals who commit wrong-think. I feel far more distress at watching the adjudication of professional licensing become hijacked by progressive politics than I do watching Peterson or any other professional Tweet some stupid d1ckbag things on Twitter. In para 61 Schabas mentions that the ICRC warned Peterson about his unprofessional language, in order to avoid a negative perception toward the profession of psychology.
The profession of psychology fails if chooses civility over conscience.12
In para 61 Schabas cites Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 541, a case about a massage therapist who had a sexual relationship with a client and who was investigated by his College without his knowledge. The application judge recognized the principle that unless exceptional circumstances exist, a court should not interfere in an administrative proceeding until it has run its course, states para 68 of Volochay. I would argue the circumstances of the Peterson situation qualify as exceptional circumstances where the court should not have deference for an adjudicator’s decision. In para 63 Schabas cites Longman v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2021 ONSC 1610, a case about a pharmacist dispensing error. In the Longman case a passive form of negligence combined with poor dispensing software created an error, hardly comparable to Peterson’s case. In para 64 Schabas trots out the phrase degrading and demeaning language again, implying that if only Peterson expressed himself nicely the College would leave him alone.
In para 65 Schabas alludes to the challenge of balancing professional responsibility to standards of care + conduct with religious rights, Charter sections 2 and 15, citing Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2019 ONCA 393, in which a group of family physician objected to the policy that requires them to offer a referral for medical services they refuse to deliver for religious reasons. In para 66 Schabas cites the Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33, [2018] 2 SCR 453 case, and does NOT note the dissenting opinion by Coté and Brown that opens this essay, provided again, below:
As expressed at paras. 336-38 of our reasons in Law Society of B.C.,“upholding a positive public perception of the legal profession” (Majority Reasons, at para. 20 (emphasis in original)) is not a valid basis for the LSUC’s decision. Equating recognition of a private actor as condonation of its beliefs turns the protective shield of the Charter into a sword. Where Charter rights are involved, a court of law ought not to be concerned with public perception — such rights existing to protect rights-holders from majoritarian values, not to force conformance to those values.” (para 75)
Schabas satisfies himself that the ICRC conducted an appropriate + fair Doré analysis and then moves on to addressing the reason he doesn’t agree that a Vavilov analysis seems necessary. Schabas fails in his decision to consider the role of the CPO aka College in a robust manner. He considers only the highlighted behaviour that offends the College ICRC and not the duty of the College to protect it’s membership from vexatious political persecution. Undermining the public’s trust in the profession of psychology apparently rests with Peterson for saying things in a demeaning and degrading manner and not with the College of Psychologists of Ontario for failing to conduct a thorough and fair investigation that considers the exceptional circumstances of the Peterson case.
Dr. Jordan Peterson behaved like a bit of an asshole and tweeted + said some stuff that sounded inflammatory + angry + politically charged. In the final para of his Decision Schabas writes that Dr. Peterson’s behaviour raised a moderate risk of harm to the public … [with a concern that] … that the recurrence risk in this case was high.
What harm? The analysis provided no evidence of demonstrated harm, ever. The only person visibly harmed by this process is Peterson himself. How many progressives have decided Peterson has the essence of a white supremacist bigot and therefore does not qualify as human, and therefore does not need human rights or any kind of human compassion? How many work in positions of decision-making responsibility? As per the dissenting opinion in the Trinity Western University case, I do not believe that the harm to the public in the form of supposedly tarnishing the reputation of the psychology profession with outspoken conservative opinions outweighs the harm done to Peterson at having his Charter section 2 rights violated.
The thing is, the literature changes rapidly, as we have seen with Gender research (because American researchers public crappy studies), ans we have seen with the Cochrane Review of masks — literature is a fluid thing and can often be plagued by poor study design and statistical processes.
No reasonable human believes JBP is giving them therapist advice on Twitter, or doing anything other than being a normal political human being.
In 2016 The Trudeau Regime added gender identity and gender expression into the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, without providing a precise definition for either, and the section of the legislative summary which defined the terms no longer appears in the document, though it is referred to still.
Shout out to Dr. Whovians everywhere I have the 15 foot Tom Baker scarf in the closet ;)
Very brilliant people have a tendency to asshole more than average, we get away with it because we are clever however, the self-aware amongst us know even though we act like we forget. When I was a nurse some of the most brilliant surgeons and internists were utter assholes and they did brilliantly by the patients and were good to the patients so they got away with their sh1tty attitude to nursing and allied professionals. TL;DR we do give smart people leeway to be jerks sometimes.
See the Doré ruling for some clever zingers
This is a very common + undesirable social media behaviour amongst gender critical and anti-Woke individuals
However a freedom-loving society also incentivises conscience.
A member must conduct himself/herself so that his/her activities and/or those conducted under his/her direction comply with those statutes and regulations that apply to the provision of psychological services.
Members who provide information, advice, or comment to the public via any medium must take precautions to ensure that:
the statements are accurate and supportable based on current professional literature or research:
the statements are consistent with the professional standards, policies and ethics currently adopted by the College: and
it would reasonably be expected that an individual member of the public receiving the Information would understand that these statements are for information only, that a professional relationship has not been established, and that there is no intent to provide professional services to the individual.
We are all going to be very civil and nice about eugenics, please shut up you bigots. #SarcasmAlert