Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattanboy
As a lawyer, here’s what concerns me. Again, quoting Levitt:
-Peterson’s are not phantom concerns. Only four years ago, the Law Society of Ontario, which regulates the province’s lawyers, passed a statement of principles requiring all Ontario lawyers to subscribe to and sign a statement agreeing to promote certain values of diversity inclusion and equity (referred to as DIE by Peterson) prescribed by it, arguably in disregard of the Charter freedoms of thought, belief, opinion, expression, conscience and religion. I and many others risked our licences by refusing to sign believing it not the role of our regulator to order us how to think. And I did this as the senior partner of one of the most diverse firms in the country.
- Lawyers were so up in arms that a slate of bencher (the term for directors of the law society) candidates ran directly in opposition to the society’s overreach and every single one was elected. They were elected because Ontario lawyers were worried that the LSO, empowered by this statement of principles, would conduct itself precisely in the fashion which the College of Psychologists just has and order witch hunts against the politically incorrect.
Interestingly, the regulatory overreach in the Peterson case should give this slate, who are running again on similar principles against an establishment slate, a new lease on life in the upcoming bencher election.
|
So it sound to me like the process for your regulatory body worked. Something was proposed, the membership elected new leaders to go in a different direction.
As for Peterson it’s not some politically correct issue as I see it. It is that he was using his position in the profession to establish credibility and then at the same time acting contrary to the interests of that profession. He can’t have it both ways and that’s what got dealt with. He is free to say whatever he likes as long as he doesn’t do it while also representing his profession or acting in his professional practice. If he does then he is bound by the rules for that profession. Nearly every self regulating body has similar cases to deal with and it is generally in the public interest that they do so.