Jordan Peterson crushed like an insolent fly by panel of judges

[basketcase]

says the person that admittedly doesn’t think much of freedom expression but also admits JP hasn’t crossed over into hate speech

Again, hate speech would be a criminal case. This is a violation of professional standards as set by the body elected by its members.

 

[basketcase]

So basically JP "violated" the ethics code of College of Psychology based on tweets? He didn't violate patient-doctor privilege... JP is amusing the ruling and will undergo the "re-training" and document the "re-training"....he's going to"grift" and make money out of it too.

Hey, now you get it. He violated the standards of his organization and has been told to get training in professionalism.

 

[Valcazar]

Oh they THOUGHT is it? How did you know they just THOUGHT that? Are you a mind reader? Or is it a reasonable conclusion to say that they KNEW that psychologists, who are trained in the field of psychology, actually know how to run a professional body for their chosen profession?

No.
Dutch's reasoning is fair, there.

Legislation is passed for a reason, with some intent.
Saying they "thought" this was the right choice is fine.
Even his argument that if enough people think the College is fucking up, new legislation being passed to change the situation is the response one would see.

That's all fine.

We disagree that the evidence is they are doing that or that most people will think they are, but it is always possible most people will come to a different conclusion.

 

[Frankfooter]

There is no point in talking to these guys anymore. Bottomline is they think they have more expertise than the divisional courts, the judges and even the supreme court or the professional body regulating the profession that no other psychologist other than JP has a problem with.

Even worse, they think echoing what JP told them makes them look smart and righteous without understanding the basics of anything.
Its like the rump cult are looking for a new Jim Jones.

 

[Valcazar]

But the actions of the CPO are 100% lawful. The court just told you that. What are you not understanding here?

My understanding of what Dutch is arguing is that even though the court found it completely lawful, it is actually a charter violation and therefore the lawfulness is moot.
Either a new law needs to be passed clarifying and limiting in what way organizations can limit speech (presumably by not letting them claim things like "public speech that undermines the profession" as a thing they are allowed to act on) or just a court decisions specifying that the College's code of ethics violates the charter.

This was not the argument Peterson or his lawyers took in court, but is sort of the one Peterson is taking in his public discourse.

 

[Valcazar]

Ask yourself why you think you are able to determine my analysis of the law isn't accurate.

In my case, the answer is "Dutch Oven's track record of legal analysis is really terrible, as most perfectly exemplified by the Trump litigation thread".

 

[Valcazar]

Freedom works the other way around rando pooner.

The cpo is unfit to require social media training - social media is not in any scope of practice, and has nothing to do with practice.
What reason, what irksome thing, did JP actually do that tarnishes the cpo or profession? where do professional codes of conduct end - he was not in a session with any patient or prospective patient.

You do know that all this is explicitly discussed in the ruling.
It was linked earlier.
You could read it and find answers.

 

[Valcazar]

They can't outside of practice, if the rhpa and associated college policies are so crap that it allows regulation outside practice thats a massive charter smash and needs to be looked at.

That appears to be Dutch Oven's argument and was explicitly the argument by that guy who wrote something earlier.

It was not, however, Peterson's lawyers argument. (Or his own in his part of the filing.)
There they argued that the problem was that the College did not properly take the time to assess and balance their choice of actions against the Charter.
In other words, they had the right to regulate speech outside of practice, but they have an obligation to weigh the charter issues and be transparent about their reasoning and reasonable in their approach.

Peterson argued they didn't do that and the court said the evidence showed just the opposite.

 

[Valcazar]

On a judicial review, the court not only assesses whether a provision of a code of conduct is unlawful on its face (ie. would be unlawful however it was applied) but also whether it was unlawfully applied in this specific instance. Peterson's argument is certainly not that the College may not define standards of conduct designed to preserve public confidence in the profession of psychology, it is that they cannot arrive at an intepretation of those standards, and then act upon that interpretation, in a manner which would violate his right of free expression under the Charter.

That doesn't appear to actually be the argument he made.

According to the decision, Peterson and his team made two arguments.

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.

I can maybe see interpreting #2 there as the argument you claim, but it seems a stretch.

 

[Valcazar]

I would hardly call this a case of much ado about nothing. We have a conflict between an individuals rights vs the rights of governing bodies and how the courts deal with it. Those are not trivial issues and have wide reaching impacts.

Only these kinds of conflicts happen a lot, there is a procedure about dealing with them, and this is only a media shitstorm because Peterson wants it to be.

 

[MRBJX]

Another entirely professional comment from our very professional and sophisticated professional....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697741286340534408

Again - what does that have to do with profession? Is the profession only for tads following the prescribed popular narrative?

Do you know what caucasian is? Have a read: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/caucasian-countries

 

[MRBJX]

What credentials do you have to call the court's decisions as wrong? JP is appealing as it is his right to do so. The appeals court will decide whether or not the courts ruling needs to be overturned.

Lol are you a simp or a sub or something? You're constantly portraying yourself as a doormat that "authorities" walk over because you readily comply where there is clearly injustice.
What credentials do you NEED to call a courts decisions wrong?

 

[MRBJX]

Someone who obviously isn't part of a profession.

Hell, employers have routinely fired people for their social media presence.

clearly you dont know the difference between employees and professional bodies. To help you out, you do not work for a professional body, you do not abide by an employment contract. This is all about a weak college trying to reduce their embarrassment optics, with their feeble plea that JP is hurting the profession some how.

 

[Not getting younger]

Like JP, expect consequences if you violate what the courts say.

Have I said differently? Or are you having trouble reading? So many butt hurt people that try to make points.

/whiff

 

[MRBJX]

And this has nothing to do with freedom of expression, which is something that has been mentioned many times.

This is about violating professional codes of conduct, which the CPO regulates, and as a remedial measure JP being asked to take social media training. It in no way impacts his freedom of expression.

What it impacts if at all, is HOW he says something, not WHAT he says. That by no means is a violation of his charter rights. Now if he does not want to fix the HOW, then he is free to continue to do what he wants, but the CPO is saying, that he cannot be a part of their organization, which is the CPOs right to say so. So in this case, it is a consequence. JP should absolutely not have the right to force himself into an organization that does not want him because his behaviour is not good enough for them. As simple as that.

He should have the right to say what he wants, and similarly the CPO should have the right to admit and license only those individuals they deem as qualified in both credentials and behaviour.

added some gender pronouning for fun and for purpose - you think that would fly with a person identifying as THEY - LMAO

What it impacts if at all, is HOW THEY say something, not WHAT THEY says. That by no means is a violation of THEY's charter rights. Now if THEY does not want to fix the HOW, then THEY is free to continue to do what THEY wants, but the CPO is saying, that THEY cannot be a part of their organization, which is the CPOs right to say so.
So in this case, it is a consequence. THEY should absolutely not have the right to force THEIRSELF into an organization that does not want THEY because THEY's behaviour is not good enough for them. As simple as that.

 

[Not getting younger]

Only these kinds of conflicts happen a lot, there is a procedure about dealing with them, and this is only a media shitstorm because Peterson wants it to be.

And why might he want it to be? To make more money? Possibly, if so, so what it’s a free world. Seems like some are hurt by that. . Could there be more reasons.?

 

[Not getting younger]

That doesn't appear to actually be the argument he made.

According to the decision, Peterson and his team made two arguments.



I can maybe see interpreting #2 there as the argument you claim, but it seems a stretch.

Regarding #2
I will bet, some, no most, if not all of the social Justice warriors who are hypocrites, who don’t how to read.

Have never worked with legal rulings, quite obviously, have never read a legal document, whether half a page or 100 pages, or contract, have never had to put pen to paper, and their name on them, even bothered to read Vavilov.

They also likely even haven’t paused long enough to consider aka think, why new legislation goes through readings, and revisions, and the senate either.

Clearly, not understanding some things, let alone how to read plain English, never mind how to read and interpret law.

In some professions, it’s called Legalese for reasons.

 

[Frankfooter]

Lol are you a simp or a sub or something? You're constantly portraying yourself as a doormat that "authorities" walk over because you readily comply where there is clearly injustice.
What credentials do you NEED to call a courts decisions wrong?

This has turned into another 'I did my own research'.

Some people still think there are lizard people, vaccines kill people, climate change is a hoax and rump won the election.
Its clear from this thread with Valcazar being incredibly patient and clear that logic, the law and human rights have nothing to do with this debate.
JP is mad and has riled up his followers so therefore they are mad and he is right.

I suggest the only way to de escalate this subject is for everyone to step back and follow Jordan Peterson rule #12.

 

[Not getting younger]

Point of order.
Human rights and the charter two different beast.

And as far as this thread goes. I suggest you listen carefully. All the way to the end. And given you and others had to be warned by a mod…

How apropos given the topic/debate and the charter
MEDIA=youtube]ooIKCgTRgr8:130[/MEDIA]
[/QUOTE]

 

[mandrill]

Again - what does that have to do with profession? Is the profession only for tads following the prescribed popular narrative?

Do you know what caucasian is? Have a read: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/caucasian-countries

Because it's a highly abusive and exhibitionistic post on the irrelevant topic of Hassan's race and should not be made under JP's professional byline. Therefore, it's "conduct unbecoming" would be my call.