Quote:
|
If a lawyer says on twitter that it's legal to traffic kids, is disbarring them an unreasonable "restriction on their speech?"
|
This comparison isn't as convincing as you seem to think it is.
There is a significant difference between what Peterson is accused of having done, and a lawyer knowingly misinforming the public about a legal question, particularly when the assertion would on its face be objectively untrue (one can quickly read the criminal code and see that child trafficking is clearly illegal).
I think a better example would be: The Supreme Court of Canada has held that capital punishment is unconstitutional. If a lawyer disagrees with that sentiment, should they be "retrained" and risk disbarment if they will not? What about Supreme Court of Canada Cases on abortion or torture. Is a lawyer entitled to express an opinion to the public that is contrary to the Supreme Court's dictate on those issues?
Looking specifically at the things that Peterson is being censured for, none of them appear to have anything to do with his actual treatment of patients, and much of it is far from "settled science" (treatment protocols for minors suffering from gender dysphoria, etc).
Disagree with Peterson about his stances all you want, hey I disagree with most of what he says, but in my view we should be weary of a professional regulator's right to insert itself into the realm of its memberships' opinions.
