Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
This could be used as a boilerplate defense of any institutionalized bureaucratic nonsense. Meanwhile, the nonsense itself might be interesting to investigate and discuss, to the extent there are details to investigate or discuss.
Education is extremely important.
-
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
What would it take to license Peterson in the
in the U.S.in a province other than Ontario?FIFY.
Dr. Peterson is well aware of the requirements for each province. He would have little problem opening a practice elsewhere other than Quebec, which likely has a French language proficiency requirement he would have to meet.
“Little by little I am learning the art of being quite content by doing very little slowly” ~ Lionel Hardcastle
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
@Jolly said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
What would it take to license Peterson in the
in the U.S.in a province other than Ontario?FIFY.
Dr. Peterson is well aware of the requirements for each province. He would have little problem opening a practice elsewhere other than Quebec, which likely has a French language proficiency requirement he would have to meet.
He doesn't know exactly why his various tweets and conversations have run afoul of the public conduct rules. Whether the public conduct rules of other provinces would be violated would again be up to an opaque committee.
-
Whether the public conduct rules of other provinces would be violated would again be up to an opaque committee.
I am certain Dr. Peterson is well aware of that risk. A hazard of qualifying for and maintaining the status of a licensed health care professional.
-
Jordan Peterson speaks out:
“Little by little I am learning the art of being quite content by doing very little slowly” ~ Lionel Hardcastle
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
Jordan Peterson speaks out:
Thanks for posting this. From the comments:
This is getting so tiresome. Then don't do as the OCP has ruled DrJP, and give up your license but for the love of all that is good in this country, stop whining and get on with your life! You said yourself you don't need your license anymore. You entered into a profession that has a regulatory body and you knew going in that it had some requirements that you either work by or you don't work.
The opposition always make it sound like he engaged in direct professional misconduct. But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner. This is the mainstream culture fighting back against him. Of course this sort of action will have a chilling effect on any other licensed psychologist, who may agree with Peterson on political matters, but who needs their license to support themselves. That's a problem, for those of us who appreciate free speech. (A dying breed.)
Education is extremely important.
-
But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner.
The comment you posted suggests to me that the problem is not with Dr. Peterson but rather his colleagues in the profession. That may very well be the case, since “The Guild” does reflect and safeguard the prevailing trends of its membership with regard to professional conduct. In short, Dr. Peterson is surrounded by licensed useful idiots and has no allies on the inside willing to stand with him in his cause. If that is the case, I am frankly surprised. Surely, given his professional insight into personality, the good Doctor ought to have realized long ago that his colleagues in the profession were, by and large, flakes.
“Little by little I am learning the art of being quite content by doing very little slowly” ~ Lionel Hardcastle
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
But obviously his crime is to have engaged in the culture wars, against the mainstream, and in a public and successful manner.
The comment you posted suggests to me that the problem is not with Dr. Peterson but rather his colleagues in the profession. That may very well be the case, since “The Guild” does reflect and safeguard the prevailing trends of its membership with regard to professional conduct. In short, Dr. Peterson is surrounded by licensed useful idiots and has no allies on the inside willing to stand with him in his cause. If that is the case, I am frankly surprised. Surely, given his professional insight into personality, the good Doctor ought to have realized long ago that his colleagues in the profession were, by and large, flakes.
It's not a democracy, it's just a bureaucracy, run by social climbing mainstream bureaucrats who got where they are by thinking and saying all the right progressive things. It's similar to deans or presidents of universities. Their opinions in culture war matters will be systematically leftward of students or faculty, and it is so because they got where they are by being systematically leftward.
-
Call what or what not you wish. At no time was it ever a democratic institution. Actually it’s a modern equivalent of what was once called a Guild:
Professional organizations replicate guild structure and operation.[61] Professions such as architecture, engineering, geology, and land surveying require varying lengths of apprenticeships before one can gain a "professional" certification. These certifications hold great legal weight: most states make them a prerequisite to practising there.[citation needed]
Though most guilds died off by the middle of the nineteenth century, quasi-guilds persist today, primarily in the fields of law, medicine, engineering, and academia.[61] Paralleling or soon after the fall of guilds in Britain and in the United States professional associations began to form. In America a number of interested parties sought to emulate the model of apprenticeship which European guilds of the Middle Ages had honed to achieve their ends of establishing exclusivity in trades[62][63] as well as the English concept of a gentleman which had come to be associated with higher income and craftsmanship[64][61][65]
Licensing and accreditation practices which typically result from the lobbying of professional associations constitute the modern equivalent of a 'guild-privelge', albeit in contrast to guilds of the Middle Ages which held a letters patent which explicitly granted them monopolies on the provision of services, today's quasi-guild privileges are subtler, more complex, and less directly restrictive to consumers in their nature.
Nevertheless, it can be argued quasi-guild privileges are in many cases designed not just to serve some notion of public good, but to facilitate the establishing and maintaining of exclusivity in a field of work.
-
Education is extremely important.
-
Most certainly the case with Doctor Peterson. I doubt though that religious or ideological conformity is making a comeback. Rather conformity among guild members has always been in place and according to the zeitgeist of the times.
-
Op-ed page of todays WSJ
Canada vs. Jordan Peterso
A system that relies on cultural repression to advance its agenda sees him as a danger.Mary Anastasia O’Grady
In their latest bout with the Leviathan, Canada’s little guy and gal came away with a victory: Judge Richard Mosley ruled last week that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s 2022 use of emergency powers to break up protests against Covid-19 restrictions and mandates was unjustified and “infringed” on the constitution. Truckers 1, Nanny State 0.
If not for the wide latitude the high court has given the administrative state across Canada, an Ontario regulator wouldn’t have the power it’s now using to punish Mr. Peterson for his political beliefs. As Bruce Pardy, executive director of Toronto-based Rights Probe and a professor at Queens University in Kingston, explained in an August op-ed for the National Post, “judicial deference grants control not to a monarch but to a professional managerial class.”
That “broad discretion in the hands of administrative bodies,” Mr. Pardy wrote, “has become the foundation of our modern system of government.” The Peterson case is only the latest example of creeping Canadian authoritarianism.
Mr. Peterson hasn’t seen patients since 2017. He makes a living as speaker, author and podcaster. He calls himself an “online educator.” He has five million followers on Twitter. He is, in a word, influential.
He’s also controversial in that he bucks the academy. According to Ontario court documents, he’s been the subject of complaints since 2018 about his public statements “on topics of social and political interest, including transgender questions, racism, overpopulation, and the response to COVID-19, among others.” The complainers—none of whom seem ever to have been his patients—mainly tweeted their objections to the provincial licensing board known as the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
The board’s job is to regulate for competence, not for political views. Nevertheless it assigned a committee to investigate the complaints. In March 2020 the committee recommended no action, though it said Mr. Peterson’s “manner and tone” were of concern.
The griping continued. In August 2022 the board wrote to Mr. Peterson on behalf of its panel of investigators about his “demeaning, degrading and unprofessional” public statements and the “harm” they could cause people. He could solve the problem, the bureaucrats said, if he would agree to attend a re-education camp of its choosing.
Mr. Peterson declined the offer—though he wrote in a letter to the board that he had turned to people in his life he trusts for advice and counseling. The board said failure to be re-educated its way “may constitute professional misconduct.” This is all the more surprising because there was no disciplinary hearing, a necessary step in a judgment of misconduct.
Mr. Peterson took the board to the Ontario Divisional Court, which ruled against him in August. Earlier this month the Ontario Court of Appeal said it wouldn’t hear his case. That’s the end of his legal road. Either he agrees to provincial rehabilitation or he might lose his credential.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s Mr. Peterson’s worldview, not his delivery, that has gotten him into trouble with the authorities. After all, online snark isn’t yet a crime in Canada. Court documents cite instances of name-calling politicians and his refusal to use pronouns other than those that correspond to biological sex. In May 2022, court documents say, “he commented on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover with a plus-sized model, tweeting: ‘Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.’ ”
In his willingness to fight back, Mr. Peterson may be an outlier. Many Canadians undoubtedly prefer self-censorship to the risk of getting crosswise with the Red Guard or being reported to human resources. But Mr. Peterson is a polemicist who is unafraid. This makes him a problem for the mob and a danger to a system that relies on cultural repression to advance its agenda.
It isn’t necessary to decide whether Mr. Peterson is correct in his views, or in the way he expresses them, to decry this bullying from on high. In a free society there is a right to be wrong. Sardonic commentary is an age-old rhetorical weapon. Mr. Peterson is entitled to his politics as much as the butcher or the baker.
If only Mr. Peterson’s treatment were an exception to the administrative state’s modus operandi. In 2018 the law societies of Ontario and British Columbia refused to credential Trinity Western University’s law school because the university makes students take a vow not to engage in sex outside marriage, traditionally defined. This would seem to be a matter of religious freedom. But the court said the regulator was acting in the public interest.
A court that cancels liberty has lost its way and the nation can’t be far behind.
