The case has also raised broader issues about freedom of expression and whether the college is overstepping its authority by penalizing the controversial psychologist for his opinions.
I don’t get his argument. In ANY job, if you publically say (or do) something that goes against the values of the company you work for, you get punished (or fired).
This has been the case for every homophobe, racist, sexual pervert, Holocaust denier, and customer service abuser to make the news.
I don’t get his argument. In ANY job, if you publically say (or do) something that goes against the values of the company you work for, you get punished (or fired).
I think you shouldn’t get fired for saying anything (that would be covered by the 1st amendment in the US (which I think doesn’t cover blatant hate-speech)) that goes against the values of the company you work for.
But is the “Ontario college of psychologists” like an “order” where its member are held to a higher standard because they have an important role? Like a doctor is not supposed to fuck a client. I can agree to higher standards then.
Anyway, if the quote’s context is true, as a psychologist, telling people to kill themselves is fucked up.
It’s a regulatory body for psychologists in Ontario Canada. All Psychologists must be registered with them to be licensed.
that would be covered by the 1st amendment in the US
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[4]
This only covers what speech congress may abridge. Nothing of your employers or other entities. It would be different if your employer could send you to prison over your speech, but that’s not the reality.
This only covers what speech congress may abridge.
Gotcha.
I think that your workplace can’t fire you for stupid reasons, like if you say to vote for another candidate that your boss wants or for refusing to participate in a tiktok video, so I assumed that there was some “free spech” protecting you for that.
If your political beliefs are tied to race, religion, or gender, they’d be covered by Title VII of the CRA. If your political motivations are driven by a desire for better employment law, they may be protected by the NLRA. Beyond that, laws protecting political speech and beliefs of employees would be potentially state antidiscrimination laws, off-duty conduct laws, and coercion laws, but of course that varies state-by-state.
Well, thats were the weeds start, your boss isn’t really allowed to fire you for who you vote for, as they are not entitled to know that info (they would need to violate your rights to find out against your will).
But if you go around spewing hate speech, inciting violence they can definitely shit can you.
Well, thats were the weeds start, your boss isn’t really allowed to fire you for who you vote for, as they are not entitled to know that info (they would need to violate your rights to find out against your will).
I meant if you said it publicly. I think they can’t fire you for that.
But if you go around spewing hate speech, inciting violence they can definitely shit can you.
Yeah, that’s what I was saying.
deleted by creator
The right to freedom of speech is not unlimited in Canada. It’s specified in section 2b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;” but section 1 of the Charter says, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Plus, that only affects the government’s ability to curtail your freedom of speech.
In any case, the Ontario College of Psychologists is not a government body, but a professional college. This guy behaved unprofessionally, and therefore is a reasonable target for professional sanctions. Since words are one of a psychologist’s instruments for treating (mental) illnesses, what he’s done is pretty damned close to a regular physician who’s approached by someone at a party suggesting they take a drug that they know won’t treat the illness and has nasty and occasionally fatal side effects (rather than just telling them to go away). Technically that person is not their patient, but they still have a minimal duty of care not to give advice that they know to be actively harmful.
He can have either the freedom to be verbally abusive in public or retain his license to practice psychology. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask him to find a new job if his current one asks more of him than he wants to give.
The 1st amendment absolutely covers hate speech. Employers can and should be able to fire employees for what they say. Have you ever had a job before? Do you realize how much damage you can do to an organization and its reputation with just first amendment speech?
This article doesn’t mention that the last straw was a tweet where he joked “You’re free to leave at anytime”, by which he meant “kill yourself if you’re so concerned about the planet”.
I’d say a psychologist endorsing self harm losing his license isn’t an overstep even in countries that have freedom of speech
Just needing professionalism training should be seen as a home run for him
Would love to hear how he plans to backtrack on that one
He wont have to:
- On July 27, 2022, the Panel released decisions recommending no further action be taken regarding Dr. Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.” Additionally, a tweet critical of the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society in removing children from the Ottawa trucker protest was also found to require no further action.
The panel here is the
Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Psychologists of OntarioBut it sure doesn’t sound like he’s off the hook for all the other shit he said.
It also leaves out when he tweeted kink porn of factory man milking thinking it was a real thing the Chinese government is doing
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Jordan Peterson will find out Wednesday whether or not the College of Psychologists of Ontario overstepped in its efforts to sanction him for a series of controversial public comments.
The college has ordered Peterson — who has gained international fame for his bestselling self-help books and lectures — to pay to undergo a media training program, saying some of his tweets may be “degrading” the profession and even raise questions about his abilities as a psychologist.
The case has also raised broader issues about freedom of expression and whether the college is overstepping its authority by penalizing the controversial psychologist for his opinions.
Peterson, a professor emeritus with the University of Toronto psychology’s department, has sparked controversy over his views on women, masculinity and gender identity, namely refusing to use people’s preferred pronouns.
The panel said it recognizes Peterson has a constitutional right to freedom of expression but, as a member of the college, he is obligated to maintain its professional standards.
Peterson told CBC News in January that he has no intention of giving up his fight with the regulatory body, accusing the college of attempting to stymie his speech and discipline him for his political opinions.
The original article contains 418 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 53%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Is this another one of those “Justice” Center for Constitutional “Freedom” right wing troll farm cases?
The Ontario College of Psychologists is the regulatory body for the profession in the province of Ontario.
So no.
I just didn’t see anywhere where it said who he was being represented by. I wondered if the trolls at the JCCF had their hands in this loss.
