44 Replies to “Don’t Tug On Superman’s Cape”

  1. “How pure a life do you think you’re gonna have to lead so that these demented harpies are going to leave you alone?”

    In the words of the late, great Kathy Shaidle: “Come get me your fairies”.

  2. I think my opinion might be contrary on this topic as well. My personal opinion is that Peterson’s attorney didn’t handle the appeal properly. He approached it from a straight “freedom of expression” point of view and didn’t get into the specific issue of the case. I reviewed the regulatory requirements and the only section that seemed to apply was about degrading people in a public forum.

    I think the proper approach to appealing the case should have centered around the fact that the College of Psychologists of Ontario doesn’t specifically define what “degrading” means in their context. By that fashion, Peterson’s attorney could have argued truth v. fallacy as well as interpretation v. perception. Instead, the counsel handed a blank canvass to the court and allowed them to apply personal preference instead of the law. When ever you have a subjective topic before the court, always give them rope to hang themselves. The filed brief should have used the word DEGRADING in the very first sentence. “I believe my treatment by the College of Psychologists of Ontario has been degrading.”

    1. Orson

      You raise a interesting point re the free speech angle. The Charter, and its interpretation by the courts, does not give an unlimited right to free speech. Governments etc. can regulate or limit free speech. Note; I’m not implying they should do this, merely observing that they often do this.

      Peterson and his lawyers chose a free speech defence. This gives the court a lot of latitude.

      I like your point that they should have made other arguments.

      I remember in a law class, our prof said if there are 10 possible arguments as to why a court should rule in your favour, you MUST mention all ten. Even if your first two points are rock solid, and the other eight are seemingly trivial; the court may toss out all your arguments except for the last seemingly trivial point.

      1. JOKE
        Some one who believes video game based propaganda , should not be giving legal opinions.
        I would handle it very differently, and I took NO legal school crap, but have quite extensive experience, from going to court!

        1. Gym

          Oh wise and knowledgeable legal sage, do tell us how you’d handle it.

          Please elucidate us with your vast legal experience.

      2. Governments can regulate or limit speech, but cannot regulate or limit free speech. If igovernment regulates or limits speech, it’s not free speech

    1. Mini Mafia is actually more accurate, meaning the college is just another group of parasites demanding their cut eg.. (indulgencies)… IOW.. nice practice you have there, shame if any thing were to happen to it, pay up or perish. Everywhere in our society has a Agency, College, Commission, Board, Council, Committee, Tribunal the list is endless… All demanding their cut for protection or recognition on their terms or perish.

  4. Since Herr Gerald is petty and vindictive, I believe that a little phone from Obersturmbannführer Butts persuaded College of Psychologists to give J Peterson grief.
    BTW, what happened with the spat on X/Twitter between Peterson and Butts?

  5. He should record the forthcoming re-education sessions, covertly if necessary, and then publish them later on. No doubt the re-educators would be destroyed by him in any arguments.

  6. This is a joke, this country’s a joke. Freedom of speech notwithstanding, the college should have dismissed the complaints from internet cry-babies out right since none of them were his patients. They are doing this simply because they don’t like him. The complainants, the college and the courts are all behaving like a**holes here, not Jordan.

    1. They are doing exactly what Mini Mafias do, enforcing their rules.
      Oh and for a fee… there is always a fee to pay… of course there is.

  7. The court refused to take up a situation where a regulated professional was subjected to arbitrary and unknowable standards of speech while simultaneously claiming that the speech code doesn’t violate the concept of freedom of speech.

    This is not surprising as it did the same with nurses and doctors during the pandemic

  8. This is only further proof, as if anymore is needed, to show how this society is devolvinging into total fascism. The fact that the judicial system sided with the college to require Peterson to attend a re-training program is the perfect example of how we are desending into the morass that was the Third Reich. Laws that are twisted and corkscrewed into shapes that don’t reflect the common morals and decency of a society have no place in that society. What we are seeing in these ‘trials’ across Western Society shows that we are perhaps past the point of redemption. Peterson’s and Trump’s tribulations combined with the J6 trials, the Grus and Trucker trials in Ottawa, the Coutts 4 debacle in Alberta and now the Post Office scandal in the UK are the spear points that are eviscerating Western Culture. The longer we put up with these events, the sooner we will truly descend into anarchy.

  9. Freedom of Speech / Expression rights are to protect from the Government. The College is a self regulating entity overseen by the Province.
    College of Psychologists of Ontario does not have a fully elected board.
    “The College is governed by a Council comprised of seven elected professional members, two to three appointed academic members or the profession, and five to eight public members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In addition, there is one elected, non-voting Psychological Associate member.”
    Currently there are 7 professional, 2 appointed academic and 7 appointed public members. 3 non-voting members.

    So if the professional members want change, they are easily out voted by appointed bodies. Good luck changing this internally.

    One of the the requested (required) attitudes is: “Commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion”

    I hope Peterson embarrasses the hell out of them.

    Another example would be the Law Society of Ontario. They went through something similar in the past couple years; a requirement that all licensed members make and sign a statement that they adhere to this DEI crap. They failed to elect enough non-woke members to create change.

  10. I’ll tell you one thing! Sparks are gonna fly when PeePee and blubber douggie hear about this!!!

      1. Not much. Just voice his concern about the erosion of liberties. Kid stuff, really. Would only take him a minute or two.

  11. Don’t tug on Superman’s cap.
    Don’t pi$$ into the wind.
    Don’t pull the mask off the lone ranger.
    And don’t mess around with gym!

    1. You’re so vain, you probably think that song is about you. Don’t you? Don’t you?

  12. But also Canadians don’t understand that if they can’t trust their professionals to tell them the truth, then they don’t have professionals anymore.

    Speaking as a Professional … this should scare the SHIT out of everyone. Add to that the eradication of our Western (what? read: “white”) meritocracy … and we are DOOMED as a society. And your own life may be claimed in the process

    1. It’s already happened. Thousands of Canadians, maybe tens of thousands, have been injured or killed by the mRNA gene therapy with the undisclosed SV40 promoter contaminated with dsDNA that produces random protein bits including prion-like proteins because our physicians have been threatened with loss of their license if they dare to question the jab.

      1. Bingo !! And don’t get me started on the “consensus” of Climate scientists … speaking of untruth

        1. And how Engineering societies won’t allow discussion of climate change and whether we also need to plan for “if it gets colder, then what should we do?” I don’t image a sky-scraper will do very well when entombed by a 1000 foot high wall of ice that later decides to start moving.

          1. They’re destined for the lateral forces of gale winds, and amplified Venturi-driven winds through the canyons of high rises … even designed for airplane strikes. But glacial movement? No. And it won’t end well.

  13. The petty bureaucrats of professional associations are more interested in the power that comes with their state-granted monopolies to practice than their professionalism. They are also more interested in aligning with the politicians who have the power to revoke such power than allowing diversity of opinion within their membership. Their members live in fear because without that “ticket” they are out of work. It takes bravery or independence or both to stand up to them. That virtually all of the associations, colleges, and guilds have been captured by the left is not coincidental to their silencing of their members voicing alternative opinions. Petersen’s persecution is an example of an activist and partisan association backed by the power of the state making an example of a popular politically correct heretic – not unlike the Inquisition.

  14. Who were the decision makers? If right is on their side, they should be proud to have their names and faces attached to this action, it should be their legacy, the first thing we associate with them, RIGHT?
    This is one of my pet peeves, that the bad actors are not identified. Think of the dirty underhanded tactics used against VAXX dissenters by professional boards or think about who was on the advisory board that approved the vaccination of children with an experimental vaccine, or the Harvard Board. For all practical purposes, they are essentially anonymous.

    1. This is what it will have to come to since there appears no way to get proper redress from any conventionally accepted means: the nameless people behind these decisions, the corrupt, ideologically possessed actors live and move amongst us – they must pay a price for their activism and betrayal of trust placed in them whether as stewards of professional organizations or the neighbor cop who was “just doing his job” when, for example, he participates in an illegal, political, arrest of a reporter the regime doesn’t approve of (David Menzies). There needs to be consequences for them.

      Unfortunately, the left introduced this outcome when they chose to attack anyone who dared stray outside their narrow boundaries of ideological purity. These are now the “rules” we need to employ on them, as uncomfortable as that is for our side who’d much rather “be left alone”. People such as the nameless members of the college sanctioning Peterson, to the judge validating the colleges actions, need the same level of public shaming and even intimidation that the left routinely, without consequence, employs. If they lefts tactics are a guide, these people should be scared to walk the streets in public.

      It’s obvious we can no longer count on noting to ourselves the hippocrisy of the left, or their double standards, or how they always seem to get away with their appalling, anti-social behavior. The left understands pure exercise of power, regardless of how they achieve it. We need to do likewise because our pacifity in observing outdated conventions has got us to the current state of affairs.

  15. “You know, this country is in rough shape. It’s in far rougher shape than people understand.”
    I don’t think that’s true here at SDA and that’s just my opinion.
    But he should say that over and over again: Canada is a Corrupt Country.

  16. I assume.. This adventure will give Peterson enough content for a New #1 best seller book.. As we are fond of saying, it’s how she goes :)..

  17. Peterson is bigger than the College of Psycologists and he knows it. I don’t think he intended to win, he intended to lose and defrock them.

  18. I seem to remember a case regarding a Charted Accountant being disciplined in some province like 20 or 30 years ago. Another CA testified in his defence. Then the Institute started to investigate the CA who defended him. Outside of what happens between a professional and his clients and criminal charges a professional regulator should have no authority to discipline at all.

  20. If the college is not the government, then he can just not go and keep practicing. If they yank his license, and he keeps practicing, and the gov’t comes after him, then the college is de facto the gov’t, making a liar out of the judge.

  21. I learned some time ago not to offer opinions on legal matters if I haven’t actually looked up the law myself; and I haven’t looked up any law in decades, so I try to keep my mouth shut. All I think I can say here is that neither the court nor the lawyer is obviously wrong here.

    The problem is not that the College has authority over the behaviour of its members; the problem is that this authority is being exercised in a dishonest and improper way. But, until they actually break the law, the College cannot be corrected by the court. Only the membership can do that, and if they won’t do it, it won’t get done.

    The College is supposed to be autonomous and to possess unique understanding of the profession and its concerns. It probably should be. It shouldn’t be second guessed by people who have only ever prosecuted parking tickets. The law should, and apparently does, give it leeway to make its own decisions. It is up to the profession to set standards of honesty and competence, and the problem is that they aren’t doing it.

    I have a high opinion of Jordan Peterson generally, and particularly as a psychologist. Amongst other things, it seems to me that he has a proven ability to recognize a good lawyer when he sees one. I would advise anyone unhappy with this decision – and I think most people should be – not to cast aspersions on Peterson’s lawyers, and indeed not to fixate on shortcomings in the judiciary, manifest thought they may be. The legislature has conferred responsibility on the College which the College is not meeting. Focus on the College and the Legislature.

    1. Good points, but the dilemma is that there is no accountability for the college except, in this instance, the courts. The legislature is, of course, the final avenue of redress to remedy this but that’s little consolation in the present when, if such remedy were introduced, it would likely be months or years to rectify.

  22. What makes the National Post think the “demented Harpies” ” want Mnay-sayers” to LIVE, let alone lead a “pure life”?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation