Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Ok so none of you troubled by this. The specific circumstances. Ok.

Why don’t you just say what you mean?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why don’t you just say what you mean?

I think he was expecting someone else to read another Jordan Peterson 30 page diatribe and break it down for him.

Can Peterson just go away already. He sounds like a whiny baby at this point.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why don’t you just say what you mean?

Here you go. Howard Levitt is well respected as a leading employment lawyer.

https://financialpost.com/fp-work/jo...-to-anyone-now

“In employment law, if you lose your job, you will be compensated by a court in an amount between two and 27 months depending upon factors such as re-employability, age, and length of service. But what if you are deprived, not of a particular job, but of your livelihood as this College is threatening and every professional regulatory body can?

Courts have dealt with this, finding that the damages from employer complaints leading to regulatory delicensing are dramatically greater than damages for wrongful dismissal. This can occur in every licensed profession from licensed mechanics, to stockbrokers, pharmacists and teachers. And, as regulatory bodies are increasingly run by the woke (just take the Halton District School Board and the ludicrous case of the transgender teacher), those on the other political side are at risk. And, unlike Peterson, few can afford a suspension pending a hearing, let alone the costs and publicity associated with defending yourself against an unfriendly tribunal of political opponents.

Given that the college had the temerity to take on a person with such public support, one can only imagine how many psychologists with the wrong political opinions it has previously cowed into submission. Peterson’s is an important fight. His failure would leave many vulnerable to attacks on their employment by third party letters to their professional bodies or even to their employers by leftists (today, tomorrow who knows what political views will be ascendant) with opposing views claiming that they have put their profession into disrepute, (which is an actual offense under Law Society rules). I had one such complaint for a previous column when I referred to a decision of a privacy commissioner as boneheaded, for which I was informally cautioned. Such weaponization of political opinions must be stopped in its tracks. Peterson is just the person to do it.“

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Ok so none of you troubled by this. The specific circumstances. Ok.

What do you think the specific circumstances are, exactly?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What do you think the specific circumstances are, exactly?

From Levitt’s article:

- Which patients complained to the College that he was conducting his craft as a psychologist (all that the College can regulate) improperly? Actually, none at all. None could have as he has not practised as a clinical psychologist for over five years. Nor did any of the complainants even know any of his patients.

- OK, then what psychological principles was he allegedly breaching? Well again, the complaints against him have nothing to do with his practice of psychology but were exclusively political complaints from the left about his conservative political pronouncements. What were these complaints? They included his retweeting our federal Opposition Leader’s statement that the COVID lockdown was too severe and his criticisms of our PM and of Gerald Butts, Trudeau’s former principal secretary. One complainant also objected to Peterson’s rather humorousTwitter response to a critic worried about overpopulation: “You’re free to leave at any point.”

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Here you go. Howard Levitt is well respected as a leading employment lawyer.

Who also happens to be Peterson's lawyer. The fact that he has his lawyer writing Op-Eds in the National Post tells you that this is basically all a grift.

[MarchHare]

What does any of this have to do with Canadian federal politics and "woke liberal rule"? The College of Psychologists of Ontario is not a government agency, and even if they were, they're a provincial (not federal) organization.

[Roughneck]

What Peterson wants this to be about, and what it is actually about, are two different things. He keeps leaving out the pretty key part of it all, and why the court rejected the idea it wasn't within the College's purview:

-He was first directed to undergo social media training by the CPO's complaints committee in 2022 following an investigation that found he may have engaged in “degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments" related to an appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast. In the episode, Peterson identified himself as a clinical psychologist and appeared to demean a former client. The college's ethics code requires members to use respectful language and not engage in "unjust discrimination."

- Last August, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas ruled against Peterson and upheld the college's education order(opens in a new tab). The judge found the move “does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics."

"Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,'" Schabas wrote in his decision. "He cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity."

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/peterson-...ourt-1.6729718

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

How has the “woke liberal rule” infringed on your ability to exercise free speech?

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.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What does any of this have to do with Canadian federal politics and "woke liberal rule"? The College of Psychologists of Ontario is not a government agency, and even if they were, they're a provincial (not federal) organization.

I was referring to small L liberal. But you are correct, these are provincial regulatory bodies. And that this is probably the wrong thread to have raised this.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

As a lawyer, here’s what concerns me.

If you're a lawyer why are you quoting an op-ed in the Financial Post instead of the decision itself?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by timun

If you're a lawyer why are you quoting an op-ed in the Financial Post instead of the decision itself?

Regarding the decision of the lower court, it’s unfortunate that the Ontario Court of Appeal did not provide any reasons in dismissing his appeal. Even to confirm the essential reasons of the decision. This is a fairly important case I would have thought.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What Peterson wants this to be about, and what it is actually about, are two different things. He keeps leaving out the pretty key part of it all, and why the court rejected the idea it wasn't within the College's purview:

-He was first directed to undergo social media training by the CPO's complaints committee in 2022 following an investigation that found he may have engaged in “degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments" related to an appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast. In the episode, Peterson identified himself as a clinical psychologist and appeared to demean a former client. The college's ethics code requires members to use respectful language and not engage in "unjust discrimination."

- Last August, Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas ruled against Peterson and upheld the college's education order(opens in a new tab). The judge found the move “does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics."

"Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,'" Schabas wrote in his decision. "He cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity."

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/peterson-...ourt-1.6729718

As a lawyer, it’s funny that this was just completely ignored.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As a lawyer, it’s funny that this was just completely ignored.

Did not ignore it, obviously don’t agree with it.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As a lawyer, it’s funny that this was just completely ignored.

You too? Jesus, these damned things are everywhere.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You too? Jesus, these damned things are everywhere.

COVID taught me you can be anything you want to be, you just have to believe it (it being that you already are that thing, right now).

[Whynotnow]

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.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Regarding the decision of the lower court, it’s unfortunate that the Ontario Court of Appeal did not provide any reasons in dismissing his appeal. Even to confirm the essential reasons of the decision. This is a fairly important case I would have thought.

You didn't answer my question. You're quoting a year-old op-ed in a newspaper, written by a lawyer who has represented Peterson; why aren't you referencing the five-month-old decision?

[Fuzz]

I thought the people simping for Elon Musk were bad...

[belsarius]

"Liberal wokeness" can be defined using 3 quotes.

1. The Golden Rule

"Do unto others as you would have done to you"

2. Your mom

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"

3. Wyld Stallyns

"Be excellent to each other"

If following these 3 simple ideas is too hard, then you might be a redneck. (Jeff Foxworthy - probably)