Jordan Peterson Ordered By Court To Undergo Social Media Training, But At What Cost?
Jordan Peterson, the controversial psychologist and best-selling author, expressed determination to continue his battle after losing his bid to prevent the College of Psychologists of Ontario from imposing remedial social media training. Despite the setback, Peterson warned that “the war has barely started.”
On Tuesday, a panel of three judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Peterson’s motion for leave to appeal an earlier decision by the Ontario Divisional Court, offering no reasons, which is standard practice for the appeal court.
In response to the ruling, Peterson took to social media, stating, “A higher court in Canada has ruled that the Ontario College of Psychologists indeed has the right to sentence me to re-education camp. There are no other legal avenues open to me now. It’s capitulate to the petty bureaucrats and the addle-pated woke mob or lose my professional licence. Congratulations, @CPOntario! You won this round.”
Peterson emphasized that this outcome wouldn’t deter him, asserting, “Mark my words, however: the war has barely started. There is nothing you can take from me that I’m unwilling to lose. So watch out. Seriously. You’ve been warned.”
Despite the defeat, Howard Levitt, Peterson’s legal representative, stated that they are unable to appeal further, expressing concern that this decision might embolden regulatory bodies to adopt a more aggressive stance in the future.
Peterson, in a National Post column, reiterated his stance, standing by the remarks that triggered the complaints to the college. “I regret none of these actions. I would say exactly the same things again,” he wrote.
But for the psychologist, the risk of losing the license seems to be of little effect on him: “I am no longer financially dependent on my practice, which I had to fold up in 2017, in the wake of the first scandals that emerged around me… I am also not dependent even on my formal status as a psychologist. This makes me very unlike my colleagues and fellow professionals, for whom threat to their licence is an intolerable threat to livelihood, reputation and family stability, financial and otherwise.”
But he promised to continue the fight as he refuses to let the failure of his appeal develop a situation where “professionals — engineers, physicians, lawyers and teachers, among others — are now required by administrative fiat to conceal what they really think and believe (which is precisely the truth you most truly need from them) lest they run afoul of the administrative minions who have now been granted full sway over their tongues and pens.”
“We’re going to perform that dance on the international stage, with all that light shining on your machinations, and you may well come to rue the day you attempted to take possession of my tongue,” he warned.
Levitt commented on the potential implications of this ruling, saying, “I think it’s going to be a licence to regulatory bodies to be more aggressive.”
Peterson also called for public apologies and mass resignations from the College of Psychologists, accusing them of attempting to undermine his reputation through re-education.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre echoed Peterson’s sentiments, saying the development is “Another outrageous attack on free speech.”
“This is the culture of censorship Trudeau has created and I will reverse,” Poilievre noted.
The legal battle, spanning over two years, originated from complaints about Peterson’s online behavior, including comments on a plus-sized Sports Illustrated model and Elliot Page’s gender transition, among other controversial remarks.
Peterson’s refusal to undergo mandated media training led to the college’s investigation and order, which he sought to challenge in court. Despite maintaining that his speech was political, the court ruled that as a regulated professional, he must adhere to specific rules governing psychologists.
We have maintained in this column that the colorful remarks Peterson has put out can’t quite draw a direct line to his profession, the very thing the college is only allowed to regulate in the psychologist’s life. Distasteful as they may be for some, these statements don’t necessarily support a standing ground in proving that Peterson is a danger in the practice of his profession, thereby threatening a loss of his license.
However, freedom of speech, like every right, has also a responsibility for the content even if it has a negative effect. It is arguable, though, that Peterson is already being penalized on his public statements by the public–unfollows, angry retorts, even defamation to an extent–which are all functions of freedom of speech. If the content of his speech is the problem, then that should be the focus of the discussion which the CPO can also participate in but cannot regulate.
But if it’s about his practice of his profession, the college is expected to oversee and discipline the psychologist. Outside that, it seems that freedom of speech was put on trial, not Peterson.
The court’s decision, while not disciplinary, imposes restrictions on Peterson’s freedom of expression within the bounds of his regulated profession. Despite the lack of reasons provided by the appeal court, Peterson’s case continues to stir debate about the limits of free speech for regulated professionals in Canada.
Information for this briefing was found via The National Post and the sources mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to this organization. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
So now with all your oh so high intelligence, You’re going to tell a psychologist how to treat an individual on a case by case basis. After all psychology is a subjective science. What’s good for the goose may not be good for the gander.
I suppose all of you upstanding advocates of non-free speech never say a dirty word in the dark! How hypocritical you all are!
You are the ones who should be snuffed out and locked up!
A direct line? OK. Let’s say, for instance, that Jordan Peterson, a professional psychologist, is tasked with the treatment of a transgendered or fat person? Would you say his having run his mouth on social media would impinge on his ability to be taken seriously by that patient? Either before or after the fact? Psychologists aren’t in much of a position to sneer about how nobody cares about your feelings. That’s sort of their whole job.
I agree. And when the time comes he has to treat a transgendered or fat person and he allowed his personal opinions to interfere with proper medical care (ie. refusing to provide care or providing substandard care), then that’s when the College of Psychologists of Ontario should step in.
Allowing CPO to have a say with what a person posts on social media–as long as it doesn’t concern his actual practice, cases, or clients–is infringing freedom of speech for me.
Free expression protects citizens from oppression by government, not private entities or… professional service organizations. Jordan Peterson can quit his practice, and the College, any time he wants, and say whatever he wants, whether they like it or not. But as long as he remains a member of the organization, they can apply whatever sort of standards they want to his public expression, including and especially standards that make his job and the job of his fellow members possible. If a psychologist, for example, wanted to go on a public tirade in support of legalized suicide or eugenics, the organization wouldn’t be in a position to continue to license him as a practicing psychologist and be taken seriously. That’s probably what Jordan is supposed to learn in the course he’s crying about having to take.
“Now before we start off, I want you to know that all that stuff I wrote on twitter about how there’s no such thing as gender dysphoria is just my personal opinion. It isn’t going to have any affect on my ability to treat your gender dysphoria.”