Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this issue. The glee and jeering with which the verdict was greeted disturbed me, for the reasons you have articulated.
Good article. However, making Peterson take online courses is a waste of time. He either won't do them, or he will ridicule the process publicly to play the martyr. His history indicates that they will be completely ineffective. I understand the half measure taken by his association, but JP is such a child that he will just exploit the situation for the cause of "free speech."
He has vowed to make a media circus of the process in order to bring disrepute on the professional body that is, in his mind, behaving in a totalitarian manner reminiscent of Stalinist "re-education" camps. But that's a shame because anyone who has watched him destroy his own professional reputation by engaging in intemperate and childish invective on Twitter knows that he could really benefit from professional help if he wasn't too arrogant and self-absorbed to accept it.
If he loses his licence I do not think he can legally call himself a psychologist in Ontario, nor probably any other province though his emeritus status at U of T may confuse things.
It's clear that the public - and many regulated professionals - don't understand that regulated professionals are subject to constraints on their expression, e.g. a member of the bar can't express themselves in a way that undermines public faith in the legal system or judges. In theory (although clearly not in memory of some regulated professionals), one joins a regulated profession voluntarily, and therefore one voluntarily agrees to limits on behaviour, in exchange for being granted a license to practice (or in my case, use the title Professional Chemist).
I take the point that reaction to the JP finding seems to bear a relationship to one's opinion about JP. Also, there are many free speech absolutists among his followers, so this might be a natural fit.
I want to contrast a tangentially similar case in Saskatchewan, from 2019-2020. Nurse Carolyn Strom, was found guilty for professional misconduct by her regulator, the SRNA. She had posted on Facebook about the care her grandfather had received before his death. The misconduct finding was overturned by the Saskatchewan court of appeal. I seem to recall that the regulator had offered her a training opportunity instead of having a hearing, but she refused to participate (Note - my memory is suspect on the fine details of this, and this part doesn't come up in google). The SRNA had fined her $1,000 for professional misconduct and $25,000 to cover some of the investigation’s costs (over 150 k$ at the time of the SRNA decision.
Lots of grist for the mill in this case for a constitutional law professor, if it wasn't already on your radar screen. I mention this case because of the widespread public support for Storm; much of this support from people criticizing the government's support for health care as inadequate. There are similarities to how public support or opposition for the JP misconduct finding in Ontario aligned with the position of the supporter / opposer.
The lack of clarity on what constitutes unprofessional expression brings another concern. These cases are expensive for regulators to bring forward. A regulator without much financial security savings (e.g. a regulator with a small membership, such as in a province with a lower population), could be bankrupted by a contested case.
Thank you for the article! — well reasoned & balanced.
My summary:
- He can say what he said as a ‘citizen’ according to that low bar.
- As a Reg. Psychologist, the bar is set higher! — there is a higher standard of conduct and behaviour required for membership.
- The Professional Assoc. of Psychologists has a duty to “protect” itself and its members from the inevitable link that Peterson’s comments, as a member “in good standing”, has on the profession.
Again, the conflation of consequences with discrimination in plain view.
I have painfully listened to Dr Peterson in many venues…He reminds me of a minister in a very conservative pulpit…. much of what he says I find distasteful and anti humanistic…He strike me as a self centered narcissistic personality wishing to take society back to the 1950s….Gay, Trans, Native North American and Non Binary, etc. persons have been around for a very long time. Peterson seems unable to see the humanity in many of these people and with the many folks he demonizes such as Democratic voters in the US. In a word a Hate Monger with a 180 IQ?
I guess the point, which I think was missed, was that instead of his defenders damning the courts, they properly should be organizing to lobby the prov leg to amend the relevant rules to exclude is some manner these sorts of expressions fm review. Can think of lots of Charter-consistent ways it could be done. Too many analyze/condemn court rulings re decisions of subordinate bodies, when elected MLAs/MPPs hold the hammer and could use it or be held to explain why they're not.
No, I get the point. My point is simply that the underlying rights debate, the legitimacy of the profession's interests, etc. don't change depending on which state institution is assessing or setting policy.
Not a direct critique of the article, but it and most of the reaction to the ruling fail to recognize that it is not the courts that are responsible for the state of play, but rather the leg/govt which could easily alter the applicable rules.
I think the debate is about whether the rules are, in fact, a problem for the Charter's guarantee of free expression. My point is only that it's not clear they are. The leg/govt has left professions, to varying degrees, to largely self-regulate this sort of thing. I doubt many of Peterson's defenders would honestly prefer *greater* or more direct government regulation. To the extent they might want *deregulation*, I think my post indirectly speaks to that.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this issue. The glee and jeering with which the verdict was greeted disturbed me, for the reasons you have articulated.
<i> calling Gerry Butts a “prik” - it’s unclear why this warranted a complaint from anyone other than perhaps Mr. Butts</i>
If he is doing this in his persona as a clinical psychologist I'd say it warrants a complaint to the College.
As a private citizen, no, though given his notoriety I am not sure we can split the two.
Good article. However, making Peterson take online courses is a waste of time. He either won't do them, or he will ridicule the process publicly to play the martyr. His history indicates that they will be completely ineffective. I understand the half measure taken by his association, but JP is such a child that he will just exploit the situation for the cause of "free speech."
Oh, I agree I'm not sure the remedy is particularly helpful/useful. And godspeed to whomever has to be involved.
He has vowed to make a media circus of the process in order to bring disrepute on the professional body that is, in his mind, behaving in a totalitarian manner reminiscent of Stalinist "re-education" camps. But that's a shame because anyone who has watched him destroy his own professional reputation by engaging in intemperate and childish invective on Twitter knows that he could really benefit from professional help if he wasn't too arrogant and self-absorbed to accept it.
If he loses his licence I do not think he can legally call himself a psychologist in Ontario, nor probably any other province though his emeritus status at U of T may confuse things.
It's clear that the public - and many regulated professionals - don't understand that regulated professionals are subject to constraints on their expression, e.g. a member of the bar can't express themselves in a way that undermines public faith in the legal system or judges. In theory (although clearly not in memory of some regulated professionals), one joins a regulated profession voluntarily, and therefore one voluntarily agrees to limits on behaviour, in exchange for being granted a license to practice (or in my case, use the title Professional Chemist).
I take the point that reaction to the JP finding seems to bear a relationship to one's opinion about JP. Also, there are many free speech absolutists among his followers, so this might be a natural fit.
I want to contrast a tangentially similar case in Saskatchewan, from 2019-2020. Nurse Carolyn Strom, was found guilty for professional misconduct by her regulator, the SRNA. She had posted on Facebook about the care her grandfather had received before his death. The misconduct finding was overturned by the Saskatchewan court of appeal. I seem to recall that the regulator had offered her a training opportunity instead of having a hearing, but she refused to participate (Note - my memory is suspect on the fine details of this, and this part doesn't come up in google). The SRNA had fined her $1,000 for professional misconduct and $25,000 to cover some of the investigation’s costs (over 150 k$ at the time of the SRNA decision.
Lots of grist for the mill in this case for a constitutional law professor, if it wasn't already on your radar screen. I mention this case because of the widespread public support for Storm; much of this support from people criticizing the government's support for health care as inadequate. There are similarities to how public support or opposition for the JP misconduct finding in Ontario aligned with the position of the supporter / opposer.
The lack of clarity on what constitutes unprofessional expression brings another concern. These cases are expensive for regulators to bring forward. A regulator without much financial security savings (e.g. a regulator with a small membership, such as in a province with a lower population), could be bankrupted by a contested case.
Thank you for the article! — well reasoned & balanced.
My summary:
- He can say what he said as a ‘citizen’ according to that low bar.
- As a Reg. Psychologist, the bar is set higher! — there is a higher standard of conduct and behaviour required for membership.
- The Professional Assoc. of Psychologists has a duty to “protect” itself and its members from the inevitable link that Peterson’s comments, as a member “in good standing”, has on the profession.
Again, the conflation of consequences with discrimination in plain view.
I have painfully listened to Dr Peterson in many venues…He reminds me of a minister in a very conservative pulpit…. much of what he says I find distasteful and anti humanistic…He strike me as a self centered narcissistic personality wishing to take society back to the 1950s….Gay, Trans, Native North American and Non Binary, etc. persons have been around for a very long time. Peterson seems unable to see the humanity in many of these people and with the many folks he demonizes such as Democratic voters in the US. In a word a Hate Monger with a 180 IQ?
Every time he calls himself a clinical Psychologist, he does a disservice to the profession, his license should be suspended IMO.
I guess the point, which I think was missed, was that instead of his defenders damning the courts, they properly should be organizing to lobby the prov leg to amend the relevant rules to exclude is some manner these sorts of expressions fm review. Can think of lots of Charter-consistent ways it could be done. Too many analyze/condemn court rulings re decisions of subordinate bodies, when elected MLAs/MPPs hold the hammer and could use it or be held to explain why they're not.
No, I get the point. My point is simply that the underlying rights debate, the legitimacy of the profession's interests, etc. don't change depending on which state institution is assessing or setting policy.
Not a direct critique of the article, but it and most of the reaction to the ruling fail to recognize that it is not the courts that are responsible for the state of play, but rather the leg/govt which could easily alter the applicable rules.
I think the debate is about whether the rules are, in fact, a problem for the Charter's guarantee of free expression. My point is only that it's not clear they are. The leg/govt has left professions, to varying degrees, to largely self-regulate this sort of thing. I doubt many of Peterson's defenders would honestly prefer *greater* or more direct government regulation. To the extent they might want *deregulation*, I think my post indirectly speaks to that.